Disscussion
bahlman2
ContentServer.pdf
Making Sense of Crisis: Charismatic, Ideological, and Pragmatic Leadership in Response to COVID-19
Matthew P. Crayne University at Albany
Kelsey E. Medeiros University of Nebraska–Omaha
The incursion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) reached global scale in 2020, requiring a response from leaders worldwide. Although the virus is a ubiquitous problem, world leaders have varied appreciably in their responses resulting in substantially different outcomes in terms of virus mitigation, population health, and economic stability. One explanation for this inconsistency is that leaders have taken differential approaches to making sense of the crisis that, in turn, have driven their approaches to decision making and communication. The present article elaborates on the role of leaders as sensemakers and explains how a leader’s sensemaking approach is a critical element in successful crisis management efforts. Through the charismatic, ideological, pragmatic (CIP) leadership model, a sensemaking-focused theory of leadership, it is explained how specific, relatively stable sensemaking approaches manifest and what actions leaders engaged in those styles are likely to take in times of crisis. These connections are then reinforced through case examples of 3 world leaders, framed through CIP, and demonstrate how their sensemaking approach has influenced their response to COVID-19. The article concludes with a discussion of the impacts that these differential approaches to COVID-19 may have on the global community, and recommendations for more explicit incorporation of sensemaking into our understanding of leadership.
Public Significance Statement This article provides insight into why leaders across the world have varied so significantly in their approach to and treatment of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Through a research-backed framework and 3 brief case studies, the article demonstrates how leaders can vary systematically in their interpretation of problems and that those differences set the stage for substantial disparity in the reaction to emerging crises.
Keywords: leadership, charisma, CIP, COVID-19
The emergence of the 2019–2020 novel coronavirus pan- demic (coronavirus disease 2019, COVID-19) has placed social, economic, and governance structures under signifi- cant pressure worldwide. At the forefront of this crisis are the national leaders and heads of state who have been
charged with the responsibility of devising a response to the pandemic as it unfolds. Although many of the typical chal- lenges these world leaders face vary as a product of their social or political circumstances, the COVID-19 pandemic presents an issue that is universally applicable. Sociopolit- ical differences among nations and cultures may influence the capacity of a leader’s response with respect to form and function; the crisis itself, however, transcends borders and places populations in jeopardy with little regard for demo- graphics. As such, it would be within reason to expect that the ubiquity of the COVID-19 threat would result in an ostensibly uniform response from world leaders. This has not, however, been the case. Rather, leaders have reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic in ways that vary dramatically, ranging from swift social and economic interventions (e.g., Kealey, 2020), to downplaying the virus’ severity and de- flecting responsibility (e.g., Phillips, 2020b), and even pur- porting that the virus is a “hoax” (e.g., Egan, 2020). These
X Matthew P. Crayne, School of Business, University at Albany; Kelsey E. Medeiros, College of Business Administration, University of Nebraska–Omaha.
Matthew P. Crayne served as lead for conceptualization, investigation, and project administration. Kelsey E. Medeiros served in a supporting role for conceptualization, investigation, and project administration. Matthew P. Crayne and Kelsey E. Medeiros contributed to writing the original draft equally. Matthew P. Crayne and Kelsey E. Medeiros contributed to the writing, review, and editing equally.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Matthew P. Crayne, School of Business, University at Albany, 1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12222. E-mail: [email protected]
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an Ps
yc ho
lo gi
ca l
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or on
e of
its al
lie d
pu bl
is he
rs .
T hi
s ar
tic le
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
American Psychologist © 2020 American Psychological Association 2021, Vol. 76, No. 3, 462-474 ISSN: 0003-066X http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000715
This article was published Online First August 10, 2020.
462
reactions have left many perplexed by the differences in quantifiable outcomes across countries and communities that result from these distinct approaches, and have caused devastating realities such as mass mortality, skyrocketing unemployment rates, and economic collapse to become mainstay topics of conversation worldwide.
Central to this issue is a broader discussion of what role leaders play in times of crisis, and what aspects of leader- ship are associated with success. Academics and the popular press often conceptualize leadership from a trait or characteristics-based perspective, focusing on the question of what a leader “is” (see Zaccaro, 2007). In times of crisis or uncertainty this is particularly evident, as people look to the statements, decisions, and actions of various leaders and attempt to discern which set of characteristics is best for the addressing the problem at hand. Relatedly, much of the current theory and research suggest that leaders are most effective when they can display an outwardly charismatic or transformational style (see Dinh et al., 2014). These ap- proaches, although intuitive, belie the issue by inherently supposing that there is a “right” set of characteristics or actions that will predict leader effectiveness in managing both stable and crisis circumstances. Moreover, they do not account for the mechanisms underlying how such traits or leadership styles are expressed and, thus, provide an incom- plete perspective of the leadership process (van Knippen- berg & Sitkin, 2013). Specifically, such perspectives do not consider that much of what leaders do is invisible to others, composed of cognitive exercises in organizing and inter- preting complex information (Fleishman et al., 1991; Mint- zberg, 1975). Thus, an understanding of leader cognition is essential to a complete perspective on leadership (Mumford, Friedrich, Caughron, & Byrne, 2007).
With respect to COVID-19, individual differences in cog- nition may help explain the drastic variability observed in world leader reactions and the associated variability in public health and economic outcomes across countries. Al- though leader cognition itself is generally unobservable, it is made evident to others through a leader’s communications to and actions toward prospective followers. Before estab- lishing goals and motivating followers to action, essential elements of the leadership process (Bass, 2008), leaders must first develop a point of view with respect to a problem and communicate that perspective to others in a manner they will comprehend. This process, called sensemaking (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014), works to establish mutual understanding of a problem between leaders and followers that then allows for a cohesive and organized approach to problem solving. This is especially necessary during times of significant change or departure from norms, such as a developing crisis (Pearson & Clair, 1998), and when easily accessible and reliable information is scarce. The global response to COVID-19 is a salient demonstration of this issue. Because the majority of people possess no personal
expertise in pandemic response, they look to leaders to provide a perspective on the crisis that they can trust, organize around, and act upon. The gravity of the pandemic, evidenced by its global reach and significant costs to human life, further emphasizes the need that the general populace has for clarity from leadership.
Using the charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic (CIP) model of leadership (Mumford, 2006) as a framework, the present effort discusses the leader-as-sensemaker concept to introduce a leadership perspective that departs from more commonly considered models (Dinh et al., 2014), and to provide a framework for understanding the disparate re- sponse to COVID-19 from leaders around the globe. To demonstrate the utility of this perspective, a series of brief case studies on three current world leaders, each represent- ing one of the model’s sensemaking styles, are discussed. It is argued that pragmatic leaders may be best equipped for managing the first wave of the pandemic and, more broadly, that the variability in sensemaking, and subsequent out- comes, observed in response to the COVID-19 crisis under- scores the criticality of incorporating sensemaking style in our understanding and assessment of potential leaders.
Sensemaking, Leadership, and COVID-19
Sensemaking is broadly defined as the process by which individuals interpret cues within a changing environment and use that interpretation to explain what has occurred and to promote future action (see Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). In this way, sensemak- ing is an inherently backward-facing process, in which one collects information about a situation or event and attempts to develop an explanatory narrative (i.e., “What’s the story?”) that is then used as the basis for decisions and action (Weick et al., 2005).
Crises are prototypical of the ambiguous, high-impact events for which sensemaking is most needed (Pearson & Clair, 1998). Research has suggested that inadequate sen- semaking can exacerbate crisis conditions and lead to cat- astrophic outcomes. For example, akin to the present issue of COVID-19, Weick (2005) noted that challenges in sen- semaking distributed across multiple institutions were di- rectly related to the Centers for Disease Control’s initial misdiagnosis of the West Nile virus during its spread through New York City in the late 1990s. The errors made during this time and an inability to develop comprehensive understanding of the issue resulted, in Weick’s (2005) view, in the proliferation of a virus that eventually infected and caused harm to millions of Americans. The preponderance of evidence suggests that sensemaking is an essential ele- ment to successful navigation of crisis events (see Maitlis & Christianson, 2014 for a review), and that those who take ownership of that process have significant and direct influ- ence over the success of any crisis response.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an Ps
yc ho
lo gi
ca l
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or on
e of
its al
lie d
pu bl
is he
rs .
T hi
s ar
tic le
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
463SENSEMAKING IN COVID-19 RESPONSE
Although sensemaking is not always centralized and can be undertaken by all agents within an organization (see Maitlis, 2005), the process is most often driven through leadership (Corley & Gioia, 2004). Agency over problem interpretation and decision making most often lies with leaders (Corley & Gioia, 2004), and recognition of this outsized influence has led scholars to view sensemaking as an essential leadership competency and behavior (e.g., Shamir, 2007). Research further suggests that sensemaking is often restricted to leaders, and leaders who engage in sensemaking are often unchallenged in their interpretation of the issue at hand (Maitlis, 2005). The medium through which leaders communicate their view of an emergent chal- lenge to followers, termed “sensegiving” (Maitlis & Chris- tianson, 2014), can vary as an outcome of the problem’s nature and the leader’s distance from followers. With re- spect to COVID-19, many of the leaders addressing the pandemic are in positions of national or global political influence. Through public statements, press conferences, and interviews, these leaders provide a framework for the public to understand and interpret the crisis and to subse- quently motivate actions such as social distancing, wearing face masks, or seeking medical treatment. Although the importance of such communication has been recognized by scholars (e.g., Cowper, 2020), these efforts have primarily focused attention on the process of communicating and not the logic or interpretation of the situation that underpins the message. Moreover, there has been little discussion of how systematic differences in sensemaking between leaders may drive the form and substance of the messages that they convey and the actions that they take. Given the gravity of the consequences that are known to result from failed sen- semaking (e.g., Weick, 2005) and the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is imperative to develop a perspec- tive on how and why leaders may differ in how they make sense of the current crisis.
The CIP Model
One promising lens through which to view leader sense- making and sensegiving is the CIP model of leadership (Mumford, 2006). The CIP model proposes three sensemaking-driven pathways to successful leadership in times of crisis—charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership. Each pathway is associated with a fundamen- tally different mental model, or view of the world which, in turn, impacts how leaders interpret and respond to events in their environment (Lovelace, Neely, Allen, & Hunter, 2019). Unlike more traditional models of leadership (e.g., transformational leadership), CIP does not contend that one of these three sensemaking styles is superior to any other, nor does it suggest that there is a single pathway to effective leadership. Instead, each of the proposed pathways can lead to effective performance depending on the situation. This
assertion is informed by historiometric research (see Crayne & Hunter, 2018) on historically prominent leaders, as well as experimental laboratory-based studies. Across these methods, research (see Lovelace et al., 2019 for review) has found that CIP sensemaking styles are identifiable in out- standing leaders across time periods, geographies, and in- dustries. Moreover, the success of these individuals is not predicted by differences in sensemaking approach alone, but also by the ability of that approach to meet the needs of followers and the situation. However, the model does hold that meaningful differences in mental models exist between people (Hunter & Lovelace, 2020), and that those differ- ences can be used to anticipate their sensemaking approach and associated behaviors.
Although recent research has suggested that leaders may possess a sensemaking profile which incorporates various elements of each approach in consort (e.g., Griffith & Me- deiros, 2020; Hunter & Lovelace, 2020; Lovelace et al., 2019), the CIP model has historically held that leaders align to a single predominant pathway (Mumford, 2006). This may be particularly likely among high-powered or upper- echelon leaders who have the influence and status to be authentic in their sensemaking. This is compared with lead- ers of lower status that may be inclined to adjust their approach away from their natural proclivities to appeal to a broader audience (Lovelace et al., 2019). Thus, it would be expected that world leaders responsible for addressing COVID-19 would be likely to align to a more consistent and stable sensemaking pathway.
These pathways are defined by differences in cognitive, interpretive, and communicative strategies that manifest together as an expression of an individual’s perspective of a topic or problem. Research by Hunter and colleagues (2011) found that a leader’s CIP alignment could be decomposed to specific tendencies within nine subdimensions. Of these, four are considered to be the most prominent and are most evident from the directly observable communications and behaviors of leaders: (a) use of emotions, the emotional or logical appeals used to convey information to followers; (b) time-frame orientation, the temporal focus with which lead- ers select and organize key causes and goals; (c) outcomes sought, the type of goals pursued; and (d) locus of causa- tion, one’s beliefs regarding the causes of a situation. In the case of COVID-19, differences along these dimensions likely explain the variability in response that has been observed between world leaders and can be readily ob- served when addressing the crisis publicly such as inter- views, speeches, town-hall meetings, and official state- ments.
The following sections provide a more detailed discussion of these four underlying sensemaking elements and their manifestation in charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic styles as well as an analysis of the COVID-19 response of three world leaders aligned to these approaches: Justin
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an Ps
yc ho
lo gi
ca l
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or on
e of
its al
lie d
pu bl
is he
rs .
T hi
s ar
tic le
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
464 CRAYNE AND MEDEIROS
Trudeau, Jair Bolsonaro, and Angela Merkel. Additionally, Table 1 provides concrete examples of how these charis- matic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders differ across the four key dimensions of the CIP theory.1
Charismatic Leaders
A charismatic sensemaking approach is largely character- ized by a focus on positive emotions framed through a vision for the future (Griffith, Connelly, Thiel, & Johnson, 2015). As a result of this overt future orientation, charis- matic leaders typically frame problems around the pursuit of multiple, broad goals focused on hope and inspiring others (Mumford, 2006). In addition to the breadth of their goals, charismatic leaders pursue breadth in their follower base and endeavor to generate influence by building large coali- tions. Thus, the central premise of charismatic sensemaking is a philosophy of inclusivity; leaders structure a vision of the future for mass appeal so that the collective can create and enforce its own group identity and norms (Lovelace et al., 2019). A prototypical example of such framing is the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic I Have a Dream speech, in which he extols the idea of a future in which his children “. . . will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” (Yale Law School, 2008).
Furthermore, charismatic leaders would be expected to advocate for creative and potentially controversial solu- tions, reflecting a propensity for breaking away from the status quo (Conger & Kanugo, 1998). Their characteristi- cally hopeful and change-focused approach inspires their followers, which can help charismatic leaders enact their vision effectively. However, as seen in historical examples such as Adolf Hitler, these same characteristics can also make followers more susceptible to negative influence. In these ways the charismatic leaders described in the CIP model are similar to more classical descriptions of charis- matic or transformational leadership (see Banks et al., 2017). However, the CIP model’s specific attention to sen- semaking that precedes behavior, rather than behaviors themselves, distinguishes between the two perspectives de- spite their similarities (see Lovelace et al., 2019).
Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada
Trudeau’s charismatic approach to leadership can be readily observed across both of his campaigns beginning with his focus on making “real change” in the 2015 election (BBC, 2019). After a decisive victory, Trudeau reinforced his broad, progressive perspective stating, “This is what a positive, hopeful, a hopeful vision, and a platform and a team together can make happen . . . Canadians from all across this great country sent a clear message tonight, it’s time for a change in this country, my friends, a real change”
(Murphy & Woolfe, 2015). Such statements demonstrate Trudeau’s future orientation, affectively positive and inclu- sive approach to messaging, and vision constructed around a perceived need for change. He further reinforced the notion that his leadership would be transformative for Can- ada in stating, “We beat fear with hope, we beat cynicism with hard work. Most of all we defeated the idea that Canadians should be satisfied with less.” (Andrusewicz, 2015). Herein, Trudeau expressed a belief that his constit- uents were equally responsible for his personal success and would be instrumental in the accomplishment of future goals. Taken together, a reliance on positive framing, will- ingness to build coalitions, acknowledgment of the need for others, and broad agenda for change indicate a charismatic approach to sensemaking and sensegiving (Lovelace et al., 2019).
Trudeau’s largely charismatic approach has been con- sistent throughout his two terms as Prime Minister and has been particularly evident in his approach to Canada’s COVID-19 response. Foremost, his communications to the public have been definitively optimistic and centered on a future beyond the pandemic. For example, in his April 22 press conference Trudeau proclaimed, “On the other side of this, when the economy comes roaring back, you will define our path forward, a path towards a better, more equal society. That’s what we’re doing together” (Trudeau, 2020c). In what could have been a chance to express negative emotions in his March 23 press confer- ence, Trudeau continued to strike a positive tone as he thanked those working through the difficult conditions stating, “No matter who you are, if you’re doing your part, I want to say thank you. You are saving lives. And when it gets hard, know that your government is right there with you.” In addition to general hopefulness, Trudeau’s messages also reinforce that his vision for Canada’s future includes goals beyond defeating COVID-19 and that these objectives are not mutually exclusive. In the previously referenced speech, which was delivered on Earth Day, Trudeau alluded to both his call for a “better, more equal society” as well as envi- ronmental sustainability goals stating, “Although, our immediate focus is on the fight against COVID-19 we will always do our part to build a brighter future for tomorrow” (Trudeau, 2020a). His April 30th press con- ference similarly focused on a range of broad objectives, including protecting the most vulnerable, restarting the economy, and accessing protective equipment for front- line workers (Trudeau, 2020a). Moreover, Trudeau rein- forced a philosophy of community and inclusion in com- bating the virus stating, “Earlier this month . . . I said the
1 The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their suggestion that this table be included to facilitate the discussion of CIP sensemaking differences.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an Ps
yc ho
lo gi
ca l
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or on
e of
its al
lie d
pu bl
is he
rs .
T hi
s ar
tic le
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
465SENSEMAKING IN COVID-19 RESPONSE
path ahead was up to us. And the same holds true today . . . It’s all up to all of us” (Trudeau, 2020b). Such statements emphasize that Trudeau views people as the primary agents of crisis resolution and believes that the broader objectives of Canadian progress are embedded in the successful development of coalitions.
Despite the consistently encouraging messages deliv- ered to his constituents, Trudeau’s handling of the pan- demic has been mixed. At the time of writing, Canada has managed to keep the number of COVID-19 cases low relative to other countries of its size, largely attributable to Trudeau’s acknowledgment of the pandemic’s severity and willingness to include a team of health experts in the process (Forster, 2020). Recognizing the scale of the challenge and his efforts to quell it, Trudeau has been praised in some circles and acknowledged for his efforts (e.g., Hepburn, 2020). However, the response has also been met with criticism, particularly around his approach to early detection (Gilmore, 2020) and testing capacities in the country’s most affected areas (Russell, 2020). Critics maintain that despite confident language, Trudeau’s actions suggested costly unpreparedness. To
that end, he has further been criticized for lacking trans- parency regarding the costs of his government’s response to COVID-19 (Scoffield, 2020). Such critiques indicate that Trudeau is at constant risk of being viewed as a leader who lacks substance in his convictions and does not take effective action on the sweeping vision he pro- motes. This is accordant with previous appraisals of Trudeau’s leadership that have found him to be inconsis- tent and inauthentic to his public-facing persona (e.g., Kassam, 2019). As such, it is possible that Trudeau’s messaging lacks some efficacy without significant and obvious enforcement of policy, particularly among those who do not closely align themselves to his vision. This was made apparent in a late March public address, where Trudeau’s tone and demeanor notably changed in re- sponse to wide-spread reporting that Canadians were ignoring his calls for social distancing and self-isolation (Cecco, 2020). Taking these criticisms into account, at present Canada has largely flattened its COVID-19 curve, suggesting that Trudeau’s approach to managing the pan- demic may be working despite noted challenges (Treble, 2020).
Table 1 CIP Summary and Examples From Cases
Dimension Charismatic (Trudeau) Ideological (Bolsonaro) Pragmatic (Merkel)
Use of emotions Positive Negative Rational “No matter who you are, if you’re doing
your part, I want to say thank you. You are saving lives. And when it gets hard, know that your government is right there with you.” (Trudeau, 2020c)
“I’m sorry, some people will die, they will die, that’s life.” (Fonseca & Rochabrun, 2020)
“It is precisely because the figures give rise to hope that I feel obliged to say that this interim result is fragile. We are on thin ice, the thinnest ice even” (Merkel, 2020)
Time-frame orientation Future Past Present “Although, our immediate focus is on
the fight against COVID-19 we will always do our part to build a brighter future for tomorrow” (Trudeau, 2020a)
“. . . we must, yes, get back to normal” (Phillips, 2018a)
“It is true that the latest numbers . . . as high as they are, very cautiously give a bit of hope. However, it is definitely too soon to recognize a definite trend, and it is way too soon to start loosening any of the strict rules we have imposed . . .” (DW, 2020)
Outcomes sought Positive Transcendent Malleable “On the other side of this, when the
economy comes roaring back, you will define our path forward, a path towards a better, more equal society. That’s what we’re doing together” (Trudeau, 2020a)
“Our lives have to go on. Jobs must be kept . . .” (Phillips, 2018a)
“The more . . . we endure at the beginning of the pandemic and thus push the infection down, the more we serve not only human health but economic and social life” (Merkel, 2020)
Locus of causation People Situations Interactive “Earlier this month . . . I said the path
ahead was up to us. And the same holds true today . . . It’s all up to all of us” (Trudeau, 2020b)
“Those who are under 40 years of age have almost zero chance of death. So there’s no reason not to let these people work. After all, if the virus kills in some cases, hunger also kills” (Brito, Paraguassu, & Ayres, 2020)
“How as a matter of course the citizens have applied themselves to help each other and restricted themselves as citizens for each other, that is admirable . . . hardly any decision during my term as Chancellor, has been as hard for me as the restrictions on personal freedoms.” (Merkel, 2020)
Note. CIP � charismatic, ideological, pragmatic; COVID-19 � coronavirus disease 2019.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an Ps
yc ho
lo gi
ca l
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or on
e of
its al
lie d
pu bl
is he
rs .
T hi
s ar
tic le
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
466 CRAYNE AND MEDEIROS
Ideological Leaders
Contrasted with the future-focused and progressive vision of charismatic leaders, ideological leaders compose a vision based on previously established values. Specifically, ideo- logical leaders frame problems through an adherence to tradition, drawing allusions to highly valued prior experi- ences that they share with like-minded followers (Hunter & Lovelace, 2020). As such, ideological sensemaking is often centered on a proverbial return to glory, in which the leader’s vision for the future is rooted in common points of reference and an idealistic view of the past (Lovelace et al., 2019). The campaign slogan “[Let’s] Make America Great Again” used by both Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump in their campaigns for the American presidency is archetypal of ideological sensemaking, for example, in that it suggests that the past was greater than the present, appeals to the values of prospective followers, and implies that the glory of the past can be reclaimed. This focus on the past gener- ally restricts the way in which ideological leaders frame problems, leading them to pursue a single or select few goals (Mumford, 2006). Additionally, a past-focused time orientation is often driven through negative experiences; thus, resulting in a vision communicated through negative emotions such as anger (Griffith et al., 2015; Hunter et al., 2011).
There is evidence to suggest that ideological leaders will go to great lengths, and potentially commit ethical viola- tions, to preserve their sensemaking approach. Moreover, ideological leaders are more likely to display emotional volatility (Griffith et al., 2015) and have been associated with higher likelihood of violence than nonideological lead- ers (see Mumford et al., 2007). Despite these potentially negative outcomes of an ideological style, this values-based approach to sensemaking has been shown to lead to high group cohesion and commitment to the leader’s vision among followers (Lovelace et al., 2019). As a result, ideo- logical leaders built incredibly dedicated coalitions that are highly motivated to act upon the leader’s vision and are unlikely to accept dissent.
Jair Bolsonaro, President of Brazil
During his 2018 campaign for the Brazilian presidency, Jair Bolsonaro modeled his message and approach in the style of recently elected right-wing politicians elsewhere in the world. Specifically, he adopted the messaging of Amer- ican president Donald Trump by campaigning on the slo- gan, “Let’s make Brazil great! Let’s be proud of our home- land once again!” (Phillips, 2018a), earning him the title, “Trump of the Tropics” (Phillips, 2018b). Like Trump’s, the core message of Bolsonaro’s philosophy, is that of a return to a hypothetical Brazilian ideal (viz., “proud . . . once again!”), which aligns with the past-focused vision of ide- ological leaders. Further, his career, campaign, and subse-
quent presidency have frequently been recognized for their negative tone and appeals to anger, referring to immigrants as “the scum of the Earth” (Meredith, 2018), among other notable examples. Although perhaps an outlier with respect to the virulence of his rhetoric and policies, Bolsonaro’s actions and statements clearly align him with an ideological sensemaking style and are consistent with the ideological approaches of other leaders who share his stated worldview (e.g., Phillips, 2018b).
In response to COVID-19, Bolsonaro has struck a simi- larly negative, past-focused tone, and has framed the virus as an “us-versus-them” issue. For example, in response to questions about effectively managing the pandemic, rather than provide a positive message to his followers, he pro- vided an overwhelmingly negative view, stating, “I’m sorry, some people will die, they will die, that’s life” (Fonseca & Rochabrun, 2020). He further projected a negative and dismissive point of view on the pandemic, claiming that concern over the potential impact of the virus was the result of “hysteria” from the media who were “tricking” citizens and exaggerating “the little flu” (Phillips, 2020a). He has also consistently called for a return to normal, “Our lives have to go on. Jobs must be kept. We must, yes, get back to normal” (Phillips, 2020b), highlighting his past-focused vi- sion and his pursuit of transcendent outcomes. The nor- malcy being referenced is an idealized version of Brazil’s social and economic past (Cuadros, 2018); as such, the president has prioritized taking economic actions over the public health actions endorsed by many leaders around the world. Indeed, Bolsonaro has remained largely focused on a single outcome—the Brazilian economy—contending that any downturns in the stock market were because of a misrepresentation of COVID-19 in the media (Paraguassu, 2020b). This focus reflects the singular thematic objective prototypical of ideological leaders. Further, his us-versus- them mentality, which aligns with the appeals to values, loyalty, and identity characteristics of ideological leaders (Lovelace et al., 2019), is a mainstay of his response. For example, in late March, he contended that Brazilians were less vulnerable to COVID-19 as a population stating, “They never catch anything. You see some bloke jumping in the sewage, he gets out, has a dive, right? And nothing happens to him” (Phillips, 2020b). Taken together, such statements suggest that Bolsonaro views the pandemic as a personal burden, one that affronts the values he and his supporters endorse, and one that must be transcended to return to the idyllic state of the past.
At the time of writing, COVID-19 cases in Brazil con- tinue to rise dramatically and Bolsonaro is the subject of significant criticism from many, including individuals in his own government (The Economist, 2020). At present he continues to deny the scientific evidence, going so far as to publicly advocate nonscientific findings on potential cures—rhetoric that was removed by social media platforms
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an Ps
yc ho
lo gi
ca l
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or on
e of
its al
lie d
pu bl
is he
rs .
T hi
s ar
tic le
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
467SENSEMAKING IN COVID-19 RESPONSE
in an effort to reduce the spread of misinformation (Ham- ilton, 2020). Ultimately this denial has led to a delayed and largely ineffective response to the virus, with Brazil “ca- reen[ing] toward a full-blown public health emergency and economic crisis” (Associated Press, 2020). His approach raised additional red flags when he dismissed health minis- ter Luis Henrique Mandetta, an official who was frequently praised for his scientific expertise and communication (Paraguassu, 2020a). The health minister had publicly crit- icized Bolsonaro’s view of the virus and suggested that Brazilians should engage in social distancing and remain in their homes, leading to his ouster. Despite these facts, supporters of Bolsonaro have publicly advocated for his positions and engaged in live protests to support his cause (Reeves, 2020). Thus, the behaviors of Bolsonaro and his supporters are demonstrative of some of the most predict- able outcomes of ideological sensemaking: tight adherence to values, demands of fealty, and dismissal of information and individuals that contravene the thematic narrative (Grif- fith et al., 2018; Lovelace et al., 2019).
Pragmatic Leaders
Diverging from the vision-based sensemaking approaches of charismatic and ideological leaders, pragmatic leaders are characterized by their overwhelmingly problem-focused, rational approach to leadership (Mumford, 2006). Pragmatic leaders typically do not rely on emotional appeals (Hunter et al., 2011), instead focusing on rational arguments and per- suasion tactics to motivate followers (e.g., Mumford & Van Doorn, 2001). This tendency toward rationality results in a willingness to shift and adapt to best meet the needs of a particular circumstance, focusing less on accomplishing specific goals and more on a holistic assessment of the current challenge that can be revised as the environment changes (Lovelace et al., 2019). As a result, pragmatic leaders are willing to delegate decision responsibility and ownership to followers when they are highly skilled, pro- viding opportunity for both motivation through autonomy and high-quality relationship building in the leader-follower dyad (Hunter et al., 2011). Moreover, pragmatic leaders tend to focus their influence on small groups of “well- connected, well-educated elites” (Griffith et al., 2018, p. 155) who are more likely to directly assist in solving a problem than would the larger group sought out by charis- matic or ideological leaders (Griffith et al., 2015).
Research has demonstrated that pragmatic leaders per- form similarly on high-complexity tasks regardless of the situational context, as opposed to charismatic or ideological leaders whose performance varies considerably depending on the situation (Bedell-Avers, Hunter, & Mumford, 2008). This evidence would suggest that pragmatic leaders are the most effective problem solvers among the sensemak- ing types and, thus, would be most appropriate to lead in
high-stakes circumstances. However, some research does suggest that pragmatic leaders are outperformed by oth- ers in tasks of short-duration (e.g., Lovelace & Hunter, 2013) and that pragmatic leaders struggle to create a vision for the future when it may be desired by followers (Hunter & Lovelace, 2020). The methodical, systematic, evidence-based problem-solving approach of pragmatic leaders may be highly effective when given the appro- priate amount of time to develop but is potentially limited by its resource intensive nature.
Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany
Informally labeled “Germany’s great pragmatist” (Scally, 2018), Angela Merkel is regularly touted for her empirical demeanor and reserved approach to solving problems of global scale. A doctoral-level chemist and physicist by training, Merkel has been praised for the evidence-based policy making characteristics of pragmatic leaders. She is also noted for her cautious approach to problem solving, preferring to make incremental but defensible progress on issues (so-called “small steps”) as opposed to large and potentially risky changes (Scally, 2015). Although occa- sionally interjecting emotional language in speeches, Merkel overwhelmingly relies on a rational approach and appeals to watchful optimism. During the European refugee crisis in 2016, for example, Merkel assured Germans that “We can manage this” (Scally, 2018), endeavoring to avoid overstatement and manage expectations while maintaining a competent outlook.
Merkel’s handling of COVID-19 has mirrored the text- book pragmatic response to other crises in her tenure, with many praising her evidenced-based response and measured sensibilities (e.g., Miller, 2020). In keeping with Mumford’s (2006) conceptualization of pragmatic sensemaking, Merkel has approached communicating about the virus with rationality and appeals to scientific evidence. Moreover, the chancellor does not allow her- self to be drawn into potentially sensational statements; in a March press conference about falling infection rates she explained, “It is true that the latest numbers . . . as high as they are, very cautiously give a bit of hope. However, it is definitely too soon to recognize a definite trend, and it is way too soon to start loosening any of the strict rules we have imposed on ourselves” (DW, 2020). Similarly, she noted on April 23, “. . . but precisely because the numbers give rise to hopes, I see myself obliged to say that this intermediate result is fragile. We are walking on thin ice, you can also say on the thinnest of ice” (Merkel, 2020). Her nod to hope, but recognition of the need for continued vigilance and problem solving brings her pragmatism to the fore. Even as she likened the challenge of COVID-19 to that of World War II, Merkel appealed to the German people’s reason rather
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an Ps
yc ho
lo gi
ca l
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or on
e of
its al
lie d
pu bl
is he
rs .
T hi
s ar
tic le
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
468 CRAYNE AND MEDEIROS
than emotion (News Wires, 2020). Additionally, her ap- peals to the public remain heavily focused on the present, avoiding conjecture regarding returns to normalcy or aspects of the future. For example, Merkel refrained from setting a date in which the country would reopen, noting it would be irresponsible of her to do so giving that in the event a deadline was missed, “. . . we would go from the frying pan into the fire - medically, economically so- cially” (DW, 2020). Although her colleagues leading other countries continue to advance and revise possible end-dates for the virus to assuage their constituents, it has been observed that “even [Merkel’s] critics have come to appreciate a politician who is on safer ground explaining the importance of decimal places than projecting great visions of the future” (Oltermann, 2020). Additionally, she has emphasized the importance of both individual and situational factors in the role of COVID-19. In her statement on April 23, for example, she noted her admi- ration for the choices of German citizens, while also recognizing the role rules and restrictions have played in combatting the virus (Merkel, 2020).
The German chancellor’s willingness and ability to support decisions through evidence has been a hallmark of her COVID-19 response. In an April press conference that became a source of global discussion in news media, Merkel explained the rationale behind Germany’s virus mitigation measures in concise, scientifically literate terms (Oltermann, 2020). Moreover, she drew evidence- based connections between said measures and Germany’s low mortality rate when compared with neighboring countries (e.g., Italy, Spain) and other highly developed economies like the United States (Stafford, 2020). Cred- ited to quick, decisive actions focused on accomplishing concrete goals of increased testing and funding for eco- nomic relief, Merkel’s approach to the pandemic has been widely touted as a success (e.g., Stafford, 2020). The pragmatism of the chancellor’s sensemaking ap- proach is further reinforced by her advocacy for learning from the successes of other countries, namely South Korea, and incorporating them into Germany’s future plans (Rising, 2020). Although some citizens do object to the measures undertaken by the Merkel government (see Thomasson, 2020), the German response to COVID-19 has been widely praised (Rising, 2020). Despite the pres- ent successes, however, Merkel continues to promote a sensible and wary attention to the continuing problem at hand stating that, “It is precisely because the figures give rise to hope that I feel obliged to say that this interim result is fragile . . .” (Carrell & Martin, 2020) and “The best path is one that is careful, and not taken lightly” (Rising, 2020). It appears, therefore, that Germany under Merkel’s leadership will continue to consider COVID-19 to be a serious threat for the foreseeable future.
Integrating Sensemaking Into Our Leadership Paradigms
The three cases discussed demonstrate how leaders in positions of comparable influence, facing a universal crisis, can systematically differ in their approach to making sense of the problem at hand. Moreover, these differences in behavior result in approaches to addressing a crisis that are predictable and thematic suggesting that the sensemaking approach a leader takes in addressing one problem will be largely similar to how he or she approaches another. At present it appears that the pragmatic pathway may be most desirable for managing COVID-19, with Merkel’s style resulting in outcomes such as mass testing and a lower overall death rate among those contracting the virus in Germany. This is likely because of a meaningful fit between pragmatic sensemaking and the needs of the COVID-19 crisis. Specifically, resolution of a global pandemic requires a willingness and ability to seek expert advice, manage situational complexity, and balance differential goals; all are hallmarks of a pragmatic sensemaking approach (Bedell-Avers et al., 2008). Further, although more research is needed, COVID-19 seems to confirm prior research dem- onstrating that charismatic and ideological leaders are likely to struggle in addressing complex, multifaceted problems (see Hunter, Bedell-Avers, & Mumford, 2009).
It is tempting, then, to suggest that pragmatic leaders are the most effective sensemakers and, thus, should be prior- itized by over leaders with alternate styles. However, prag- matism is not a one-size-fits all solution to crisis manage- ment or leadership generally. A central tenant of the CIP model is, in fact, that the success of a sensemaking style is dependent on its fit to the challenge at hand and the needs of followers (Mumford, 2006). Crises such as COVID-19 are not static and the needs of the situation, and the people affected by the situation, may change over time in ways that make pragmatic sensemaking less effective and call for leaders with an alternative style. For example, pragmatic leaders find it more difficult to motivate and influence followers because of their reliance on a rational, as opposed to inspirational, approach to messaging (Mumford & Van Doorn, 2001). As circumstances continue to improve, prag- matists may find it difficult to motivate continued adherence to restrictive measures such as social distancing because of an inability to build inspired coalitions in the way that charismatic leaders can. Indeed, each CIP style has its inherent strengths and weaknesses; charismatic leaders may find it easier to inspire followers, but followers often strug- gle to align themselves with the breadth of their vision (Bedell-Avers et al., 2008). Ideological leaders form tight follower bonds, but these relationships are limited to those that ascribe to their belief system and, thus, restrict their potential influence long term (Mumford, Strange, & Bedell, 2006). Thus, the effectiveness of pragmatic leadership in
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an Ps
yc ho
lo gi
ca l
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or on
e of
its al
lie d
pu bl
is he
rs .
T hi
s ar
tic le
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
469SENSEMAKING IN COVID-19 RESPONSE
this case may be specifically applicable to COVID-19 and crises of similar structure. Other considerations, such as the multiple objective measurements of success (e.g., number of cases, unemployment rate) provide barometers of success not available in other circumstances. These concrete mea- sures may call into question the hopeful messaging of charismatic leaders, or the limited focus of ideological lead- ers, thereby limiting their typical sensemaking approach.
It should be noted that, embedded in the sensemaking differences identified here, these leaders also likely vary to some extent in personalized or socialized orientation (e.g., Strange & Mumford, 2002). In brief, research suggests that leaders do not only vary with respect to thematic sensemak- ing style but also how that sensemaking is oriented with respect to goals and how they are achieved. Socialized leaders are more likely to commit to goals that are in the collective interest and work to support or empower others; personalized leaders, in contrast, frame their goals in a manner that is self-centered and shows a lack of concern for others (see Hunter & Lovelace, 2020; Lovelace et al., 2019). Both socialized and personalized orientations are readily identifiable among each of the CIP sensemaking styles (Mumford, 2006; Strange & Mumford, 2002). Therefore, it should not be concluded that individuals with certain sen- semaking approaches are more likely or less likely to have a socialized or personalized orientation than others, or that a particular orientation is characteristic of a specific sense- making style. With respect to the leaders discussed above, it is possible that further analysis would reveal Trudeau, Bol- sonaro, and Merkel to differ in orientation as well as a CIP style. Jair Bolsonaro, in particular, may have a more per- sonalized approach to leadership than the others given the context of his statements about COVID-19. Further analysis would be needed to make such an assessment conclusively. Moreover, although differences in orientation may result in contrasting goals, priorities, or treatment of others (e.g., Strange & Mumford, 2002), they do not vary how sense- making is conducted or how a leader’s mental model of a problem is developed. Indeed, ideological leaders will in- terpret a crisis like COVID-19 through a framework of values and past-oriented temporality regardless of whether they take a personalized or socialized approach. Thus, al- though the specifics of how leader sensemaking is oriented may vary, it is likely that the fundamental principles of those approaches, and their core outcomes, will be similar.
Although the present effort addresses only three specific individuals directly, the sensemaking patterns discussed here extend to other world leaders as well. Reporting on the pandemic indicates that leaders across the world who share sensemaking approaches have engaged with COVID-19 in similar ways. For example, the evidence suggests that coun- tries led by more pragmatic leaders may have better long- term health outcomes from their response to COVID-19 than those with charismatic or ideological leaders. Indeed,
the lower mortality rates seen in Germany mirror those found in other countries led by pragmatists such as South Korea (McCurry, 2020). In contrast, attempts to understate the pandemic’s seriousness and appeals for economic free- dom that have been noted in Brazil are reflected also in the approach of leaders from the United States (Liptak, Salama, Diamond, & Mattingly, 2020). Finally, the critiques of Justin Trudeau’s actions despite his rhetoric have also been levied against French president, Emmanuel Macron (Pen- netier & Irish, 2020), suggesting that leaders with a gener- ally charismatic style may struggle to meet the expectations they put forth in their public-facing vision. Thus, consider- ing the influence of leader sensemaking may help to clarify both the noted disparities in response observed between some countries (e.g., the United States and Canada) and the alignment between others (e.g., India and Indonesia). More- over, understanding our leaders through the perspective of sensemaking may help the broader populace anticipate their response to crises and, in the case of COVID-19, aid in generating predictions about the economic and personal well-being impacts that are most likely as the crisis ad- vances.
In this way, the treatment of COVID-19 by world leaders and the variability therein denotes a broader need to revise the way that academics, practitioners, policymakers, and the general public think about leadership. The dominant per- spectives on leadership among these groups focus on what a leader is (e.g., Zaccarro, 2007) or how a leader acts (e.g., Fleishman et al., 1991), but do not consider how a leader thinks or interprets problems. This is particularly evident with respect to elected leaders; rarely are those who are elected evaluated by prospective followers beyond their surface-level characteristics and an implied association be- tween those characteristics and their competence (e.g., An- tonakis & Dalgas, 2009). Crises such as COVID-19 dem- onstrate that these assessments are woefully incomplete and suggest that there is an opportunity for a revision in our societal approach to vetting potential leaders. With respect to the impending 2020 presidential election in the United States, for example, political pundits suggest that the elec- tion may serve as referendum on the Trump administra- tion’s handling of the COVID-19 crisis (Pace, 2020). In the days after the first confirmed COVID-19 cases in the United States, President Donald Trump was largely dismissive of the virus’ severity and its risk to the American populous (Egan, 2020). Trump’s historically ideological style, noted earlier as having been mirrored by Jair Bolsonaro (Phillips, 2018b), precipitated a response strategy that focused on appeals to his entrenched political base, allusions to Amer- ican superiority, and rejection of scientific expertise (Egan, 2020). As a result, the United States led the world in confirmed COVID-19 infections and was widely criticized for its disorganized and ineffective response as the Ameri- can death toll surpassed 125,000 (O’Connor, 2020). Much
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an Ps
yc ho
lo gi
ca l
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or on
e of
its al
lie d
pu bl
is he
rs .
T hi
s ar
tic le
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
470 CRAYNE AND MEDEIROS
of the levied criticism and public analysis has focused on President Trump’s personal interpretation and framing of the crisis (i.e., sensemaking), with commenters noting that failure in that area may have cost American lives (e.g., Skidmore, 2020). This underscores the criticality of assess- ing sensemaking when evaluating prospective leaders, and the potential for application of this concept in leader selec- tion.
From a practical perspective, however, accurately evalu- ating leader cognition and sensemaking would pose a sig- nificant logistical challenge. Although research in organi- zational psychology has demonstrated the efficacy of situational judgment tests and other job simulations for evaluating managerial competence and problem solving ability (e.g., Guenole, Chernyshenko, Stark, & Drasgow, 2015), it is unrealistic to propose that such methods could be used for the purposes discussed at present. However, such overt attempts to assess a leader’s sensemaking may not be necessary. As Mumford (2006) originally proposed, sense- making styles are generally stable and are reflected in statements, decisions, and behaviors beyond the context of a single event. Thus, current and prospective leaders are providing insight to their sensemaking style at all times, including in town halls and on debate stages; the issue to be addressed is that these cues go unnoticed and underappre- ciated by those who are evaluating them. It is here where involvement and engagement by psychologists and other social scientists are more reasonable. By explaining the importance of sensemaking in the context of leader perfor- mance and providing guidance to the nonscientific commu- nity, psychologists may be able shift the focus away from personality, charisma, and perceived competence and to- ward criticism of how problems are framed and communi- cated. Using COVID-19 to demonstrate how sensemaking can explain differences in how leaders think about crises, as well as differences in outcomes for those that these leaders represent, it may be possible to fundamentally change the way that we, as a collective, evaluate our leaders in the future.
Opportunities for Future Research
The objective of the present discussion has been to mo- tivate scholars and practitioners to revise how they think about leadership to include the role of sensemaking, using the CIP model as a guiding framework. Apart from this broader objective, however, this application presents several avenues for impactful and timely future research. Foremost of these would be an empirical extension of the current qualitative analysis, wherein researchers assess the state- ments, decisions, and outcomes of world leader responses to COVID-19 with respect to theoretically grounded predic- tions.
Theorization and inclusion of key moderators in such studies may also provide important points of comparison and insight into leader sensemaking dynamics. The role of leader gender in COVID-19 response has been an especially prevalent point of discussion within the popular press, with pundits speculating as why countries led by women appear to have had more positive outcomes (e.g., Taub, 2020). Although recent efforts to incorporate gender in the CIP model have been made (e.g., Griffith & Medeiros, 2020) the empirical literature to date is limited (Lovelace et al., 2019). An exploration of the intersection of CIP style and gender in response to COVID-19 would work to address this gap, as well as provide substantive additions to the established literature on gender differences in leadership (see Eagly & Johnson, 1990).
The global scale of the COVID-19 pandemic also pro- vides avenues for the investigation of regional and cultural differences, both in the manifestation of CIP and broader treatment of the virus. Cultural differences in the leadership process have been noted by prior scholars but have often been limited to assessing task performance under normative conditions (e.g., Jung & Avolio, 1999). Moreover, research could account for environmental variables that may influ- ence how leaders of different cultures and from different global regions interpret and respond to COVID-19. It has been suggested, for example, that the widely lauded South Korean response was partially informed by noted failures in addressing the 2015 Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) outbreak (Thompson, 2020).
Finally, future scholars can use the present effort as a conceptual benchmark for analysis of leader sensemaking in other contexts. Application of the CIP model and investi- gation of sensemaking differences in leader and organiza- tional responses to other major events (e.g., the Great Re- cession; September 11th) and movements (e.g., Black Lives Matter; LBGTQ� rights) will provide additional evidence as to the importance of these dynamics. Moreover, such research would extend our understanding of CIP beyond the political and socially prominent individuals who have been most often studied in the past (see Lovelace et al., 2019) to include leaders from business, religious, and grass-roots social contexts. Together, this work will improve the gen- eralizability of CIP theory and bolster our understanding of leadership writ large.
Conclusion
Although there is not an objectively “good” or “bad” approach to sensemaking from the perspective of CIP, the present analysis of responses to COVID-19 demonstrates the potentially devastating consequences of a misalignment between a leader’s sensemaking style and the needs of the situation. Given the established importance of sensemaking in the successful resolution of crises (e.g., Weick, 2005),
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an Ps
yc ho
lo gi
ca l
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or on
e of
its al
lie d
pu bl
is he
rs .
T hi
s ar
tic le
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
471SENSEMAKING IN COVID-19 RESPONSE
both academic and nonacademic audiences must shift our focus away from the heavy reliance on the “who” and “what” of leadership and toward a more informed perspec- tive on how leaders think. The imbalance in responses by world leaders to COVID-19 is, at least in part, a byproduct of fundamental differences in how those individuals inter- pret the world around them and develop mental models of problems in their environments. By incorporating an under- standing of sensemaking into our broader societal discus- sion of leadership, we may be able to more reliably predict how a leader will respond to crises such as COVID-19 and in turn, anticipate issues arising from this sensemaking approach to develop effective responses.
References
Andrusewicz, M. (2015, October 20). Trudeau elected Canada’s Prime Minister as liberals assume power. NPR. Retrieved from https://www .npr.org/2015/10/20/450171067/trudeau-elected-canadas-prime- minister-as-liberals-assume-power
Antonakis, J., & Dalgas, O. (2009). Predicting elections: Child’s play! Science, 323, 183–1183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1167748
Associated Press. (2020, April 28). Brazilian president’s latest crisis threat- ens country’s coronavirus response. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-04-28/ bolsonaros-latest-crisis-threatens-brazils-virus-response
Banks, G. C., Engemann, K. N., Williams, C. E., Gooty, J., McCauley, K. D., & Medaugh, M. R. (2017). A meta-analytic review and future research agenda of charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 28, 508–529. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.12.003
Bass, B. M. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Ruth Bass Free Press.
BBC. (2019, October 22). Justin Trudeau: His rise - and slight fall. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34576429
Bedell-Avers, K. E., Hunter, S. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2008). Conditions of problem-solving and the performance of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders: A comparative experimental study. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 89–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.12.006
Brito, R., Paraguassu, L., & Ayres, M. (2020, March 31). Update 2-Dicisions over Brazil’s coronavirus response grow. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-brazil-politics/update-2- divisions-over-brazils-coronavirus-response-grow-idUSL1N2BO0JW
Carrell, P., & Martin, M. (2020, April 23). ‘Still at the beginning’: Merkel asks Germans for resilience in coronavirus battle. Reuters. Retrieved May 4, 2020, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health- coronavirus-germany-merkel-idUSKCN2250TX
Cecco, L. (2020, March 23). Justin Trudeau issues stern warning to Canadians: ‘Go home and stay home’. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/23/justin-trudeau-canada- coronavirus-stay-home
Conger, J. A., & Kanugo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in orga- nizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 173–208.
Cowper, A. (2020). Covid-19: Are we getting the communications right? British Medical Journal, 368, m919. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj .m919
Crayne, M. P., & Hunter, S. T. (2018). Historiometry in organizational science: Renewed attention for an established research method. Orga-
nizational Research Methods, 21, 6 –29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1094428117731879
Cuadros, A. (2018, October). Brazil turns its back on democracy. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/10/ brazil-election-democracy-jair-bolsonaro-lula-haddad/572470/
Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Cur- rent theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The Leadership Quar- terly, 25, 36–62.
DW. (2020, March 04). Angela Merkel sees ‘bit of hope’, but keeps coronavirus lockdown in place. Retrieved from https://www.dw.com/en/ angela-merkel-sees-bit-of-hope-but-keeps-coronavirus-lockdown-in-place/ a-53010223
Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256.
Egan, L. (2020, February 28). Trump calls coronavirus Democrats’ “new hoax”. NBC News. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ donald-trump/trump-calls-coronavirus-democrats-new-hoax-n1145721
Fleishman, E. A., Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Levin, K. Y., Korotkin, A. L., & Hein, M. B. (1991). Taxonomic efforts in the description of leader behavior: A synthesis and functional interpretation. The Leader- ship Quarterly, 2, 245–287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(91) 90016-U
Fonseca, P., & Rochabrun, M. (2020, March 27). Brazil’s Bolsonaro questions coronavirus deaths, says ‘sorry, some will die’. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-brazil/brazils- bolsonaro-questions-coronavirus-deaths-says-sorry-some-will-die- idUSKBN21E3IZ
Forster, V. (2020, April). Women are leading Canada’s public health response to the COVID-19 coronavirus outbreak. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/victoriaforster/2020/04/14/women- are-leading-canadas-public-health-response-to-the-coronavirus-covid- 19-outbreak/#618e4f6064ae
Gilmore, R. (2020, April 14). Trudeau pushes back as intelligence expert slams COVID-19 early warning failure. CTV News. Retrieved from https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-pushes-back-as-intelligence- expert-slams-covid-19-early-warning-failure-1.4896259
Griffith, J. A., Connelly, S., Thiel, C., & Johnson, G. (2015). How outstanding leaders lead with affect: An examination of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 502– 517. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.03.004
Griffith, J. A., Gibson, C., Medeiros, K. E., MacDougall, A., Hardy, III, J., & Mumford, M. D. (2018). Are you thinking what I’m thinking?: The influence of leader style, distance, and leader-follower mental model congruence on creative performance. Journal of Leadership & Organi- zational Studies, 25, 153–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1548051 817750537
Griffith, J. A., & Medeiros, K. E. (2020). Gender (under)representation in the CIP model: Reconsidering outstanding leadership through a gender lens. In S. Hunter & J. Lovelace (Eds.), Extending the charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic approach to leadership: Multiple pathways to success. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Guenole, N., Chernyshenko, O., Stark, S., & Drasgow, F. (2015). Are predictions based on situational judgement tests precise enough for feedback in leadership development? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24, 433–443. Retrieved from http://dx.doi .org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.926890
Hamilton, I. A. (2020, March 31). Facebook and Twitter blocked videos from Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro for coronavirus misinformation. Business Insider. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/ twitter-facebook-block-jair-bolsonaro-coronavirus-misinformation- 2020-3
Hepburn, B. (2020, April 29). Justin Trudeau deserves credit for his handling of an unprecedented crisis. The Star. Retrieved from https://
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an Ps
yc ho
lo gi
ca l
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or on
e of
its al
lie d
pu bl
is he
rs .
T hi
s ar
tic le
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
472 CRAYNE AND MEDEIROS
www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2020/04/29/justin-trudeau- deserves-credit-for-his-handling-of-an-unprecedented-crisis.html
Hunter, S. T., Bedell-Avers, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2009). Impact of situational framing and complexity on charismatic, ideological and prag- matic leaders: Investigation using a computer simulation. The Leader- ship Quarterly, 20, 383–404.
Hunter, S. T., Cushenbery, L., Thoroughgood, C., Johnson, J., & Ligon, G. S. (2011). First and ten leadership: A historiometric investigation of the CIP leadership model. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 70–91. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.008
Hunter, S. T., & Lovelace, J. (2020). Extending the charismatic, ideolog- ical, and pragmatic approach to leadership: Multiple pathways to suc- cess. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.
Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Effects of leadership style and followers’ cultural orientation on performance in group and individual task conditions. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 208–218.
Kassam, A. (2019, August 22). Justin Trudeau: The rise and fall of a political brand. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian .com/world/2019/aug/22/justin-trudeau-the-rise-and-fall-of-a-political- brand
Kealey, T. (2020, April 7). South Korea listened to the experts. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/07/opinions/terence-kealey-south- korea-listened-to-the-experts/index.html
Liptak, K., Salama, V., Diamond, J., & Mattingly, P. (2020, May 8). Trump’s push to reopen the economy comes as hope for a quick recovery fades. CNN. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/08/ politics/trump-reopen-economy-pivot-health-recovery-recession/index .html
Lovelace, J. B., & Hunter, S. T. (2013). Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders’ influence on subordinate creative performance across the creative process. Creativity Research Journal, 25, 59–74. http://dx .doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.752228
Lovelace, J. B., Neely, B. H., Allen, J. B., & Hunter, S. T. (2019). Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic (CIP) model of leadership: A critical review and agenda for future research. The Leadership Quar- terly, 30, 96–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.08.001
Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 21–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/ amj.2005.15993111
Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. Academy of Management Annals, 8, 57–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.873177
McCurry, J. (2020, April 22). Test, trace, contain: How South Korea flattened its coronavirus curve. The Guardian. Retrieved from https:// www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/23/test-trace-contain-how-south- korea-flattened-its-coronavirus-curve
Meredith, S. (2018, October 29). Who is the ‘Trump of the Tropics’?: Brazil’s divisive new president, Jair Bolsonaro - in his own words. CNBC. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/29/brazil- election-jair-bolsonaros-most-controversial-quotes.html
Merkel, A. (2020, April 23). Angela Merkel: We are walking on thin ice. Retrieved from https://www.lengoo.de/blog/angela-merkel-we-are- walking-on-thin-ice/
Miller, S. (2020, April). The secret of Germany’s COVID-19 success: Angela Merkel is a scientist. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www .theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/04/angela-merkel-germany- coronavirus-pandemic/610225/
Mintzberg, H. (1975). The manager’s job: Folklore and fact. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Mumford, M. D. (2006). Pathways to outstanding leadership: A compar- ative analysis of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders. Mah- wah, NJ: Erlbaum Publishers.
Mumford, M. D., Friedrich, T. L., Caughron, J. J., & Byrne, C. (2007). Leader cognition in real-world settings: How do leaders think about
crises? The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 515–543. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1016/j.leaqua.2007.09.002
Mumford, M., Strange, J., & Bedell, K. (2006). Introduction—Charismatic, ideological, and prgamatic leaders: Are they really different? In M. Mumford (Ed), Pathways to outstanding leadership: A comparative analysis of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders (pp. 3–24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mumford, M. D., & Van Doorn, J. R. (2001). The leadership of pragma- tism: Reconsidering Franklin in the age of charisma. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 279–309.
Murphy, J., & Woolfe, N. (2015, October 20). Justin Trudeau begins first full day as Canada’s prime minister-designate. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/20/justin-trudeau- first-full-day-canada-prime-minister-designate
News Wires. (2020, March 23). Merkel shines in handling of Germany’s coronavirus crisis. France24.com. Retrieved from https://www.france 24.com/en/20200329-merkel-shines-in-handling-of-germany-s- coronavirus-crisis
O’Connor, L. (2020, May 27). More than 100,000 people have now died from COVID-19 in the U.S. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from https:// www.huffpost.com/entry/100000-us-coronavirus-deaths_n_5ebd9b0bc5 b66e2790db0a8b
Oltermann, P. (2020, April 16). Angela Merkel draws on science back- ground in Covid-19 explainer. The Guardian. Retrieved from https:// www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/16/angela-merkel-draws-on- science-background-in-covid-19-explainer-lockdown-exit
Pace, J. (2020, May 2). A referendum election in November? Trump allies see risks. U.S. News and World Report. Retrieved from https://www .usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2020-05-02/a-referendum-election- in-november-trump-allies-see-risks
Paraguassu, L. (2020a, April 16). Bolsonari fires Brazil’s health minister, calls to reopen economy. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters .com/article/us-health-coronavirus-brazil/bolsonaro-fires-health- minister-appoints-oncologist-source-idUSKBN21Y338
Paraguassu, L. (2020b, March 10). Brazil’s Bolsonaro says coronavirus is not all the media makes it out to be. Reuters. Retrieved from https:// www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-bolsonaro/brazils-bolsonaro-says- coronavirus-is-not-all-the-media-makes-it-out-to-be-idUSKBN20X24P
Pearson, C. M., & Clair, J. A. (1998). Reframing crisis management. Academy of Management Review, 23, 59–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/ amr.1998.192960
Pennetier, M., & Irish, J. (2020, March 31). Amid criticism, Macron vows to raise medical gear output to tackle coronavirus. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-france- masks-idUSKBN21I1PU
Phillips, T. (2018a, October 8). Brazil election: Jair Bolsonaro makes Trumpian pledge as poll shows big lead. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/07/brazil-election-jair- bolsonaro-makes-trumpian-pledge-as-poll-shows-big-lead
Phillips, T. (2018b, April 19). Trump of the tropics: The “dangerous” candidate leading Brazil’s presidential race. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/19/jair-bolsonaro- brazil-presidential-candidate-trump-parallels
Phillips, T. (2020a, March 23). Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro says coronavirus is a media trick. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian .com/world/2020/mar/23/brazils-jair-bolsonaro-says-coronavirus-crisis- is-a-media-trick
Phillips, T. (2020b, March 26). Jair Bolsonaro claims Brazilians ‘never catch anything’ as COVID-19 cases rise. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/mar/27/jair- bolsonaro-claims-brazilians-never-catch-anything-as-covid-19-cases- rise
Reeves, P. (2020, March 27). Supporters of Brazil’s Bolsonaro call for protests against coronavirus lockdown. NPR. Retrieved from https://
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an Ps
yc ho
lo gi
ca l
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or on
e of
its al
lie d
pu bl
is he
rs .
T hi
s ar
tic le
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
473SENSEMAKING IN COVID-19 RESPONSE
www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/03/27/822440615/ supporters-of-brazils-bolsonaro-call-for-protests-against-coronavirus- lockdown
Rising, D. (2020, April 23). Germany praised for handling of COVID-19. Yahoo! News. Retrieved from https://news.yahoo.com/germany-praised- handling-covid-19-044913509.html
Russell, A. (2020, April 8). Ontario conducting fewer than 3,000 COVID-19 tests despite daily capacity of 13,000. Global News. Re- trieved from https://globalnews.ca/news/6793481/coronavirus-covid-19- tests-ontario-capacity/
Scally, D. (2015, October 9). Merkel’s response to refugee crisis will decide her legacy. The Irish Times. Retrieved May 6, 2020, from https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/merkel-s-response-to- refugee-crisis-will-decide-her-legacy-1.2384524
Scally, D. (2018, December 29). Angela Merkel: The rise and fall of Germany’s great pragmatist. The Irish Times. Retrieved from https:// www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/angela-merkel-the-rise-and- fall-of-germany-s-great-pragmatist-1.3733092
Scoffield, H. (2020, March 31). Justin Trudeau should tell us how much his coronavirus response will cost - or we’ll all pay a price. The Star. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2020/ 03/31/justin-trudeau-should-tell-us-how-much-his-coronavirus- response-will-cost-or-well-all-pay-a-price.html
Shamir, B. (2007). Strategic leadership a management of meanings. In R. Jooijberg, J. G. Hunt, J. Antonakis, K. B. Boal, & N. Lane (Eds.), Being there even when you are not (Monographs in leadership and manage- ment, Vol. 4) (pp. 105–125). Bingley, England: Emerald Group Pub- lishing.
Skidmore, M. J. (2020, May 31). Trump’s abject failure on COVID-19 is the natural product of his malicious ignorance. The Kansas City Star. Retrieved from https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/ guest-commentary/article243088926.html
Stafford, N. (2020). Covid-19: Why Germany’s case fatality rate seems so low. British Medical Journal, 369, m1395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ bmj.m1395
Strange, J. M., & Mumford, M. D. (2002). The origins of vision: Charis- matic versus ideological leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 343– 377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00125-X
Taub, A. (2020, May 15). Why are women-led nations doing better with COVID-19? The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes .com/2020/05/15/world/coronavirus-women-leaders.html
The Economist. (2020, April 30). Jair Bolsonaro’s dangerous divorce. The Economist. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/the-americas/ 2020/04/30/jair-bolsonaros-dangerous-divorce
Thomasson, E. (2020, April 25). ‘I want my life back’: Germans protest against lockdown. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/ article/us-health-coronavirus-germany-protests-idUSKCN2270RD
Thompson, D. (2020, May). What’s behind South Korea’s COVID-19 exceptionalism? The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic .com/ideas/archive/2020/05/whats-south-koreas-secret/611215/
Treble, P. (2020, July 14). Coronavirus in Canada: These charts show how our fight to ‘flatten the curve’ is going. Maclean’s. Retrieved from https://www.macleans.ca/society/health/coronavirus-in-canada-these- charts-show-how-our-fight-to-flatten-the-curve-is-going/
Trudeau, J. (2020a, April 22). Justin Trudeau Canada COVID-19 press conference April 22. Retrieved from https://www.rev.com/blog/ transcripts/justin-trudeau-canada-covid-19-press-conference-april-22
Trudeau, J. (2020b, April, 30). Justin Trudeau Canada COVID-19 press conference April 30. Retrieved from https://www.rev.com/blog/ transcripts/justin-trudeau-canada-covid-19-press-conference-april-30
Trudeau, J. (2020c, March 23). Justin Trudeau’s daily coronavirus up- dated: ‘Enough is enough. Go home and stay home’. Retrieved from https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/justin-trudeaus-daily-coronavirus- update-enough-is-enough-go-home-and-stay-home-full-transcript/
van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic—Transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board? The Academy of Management Annals, 7, 1–60.
Weick, K. E. (Ed.). (2005). Managing the unexpected: Complexity as distributed sensemaking. Uncertainty and surprise in complex systems (pp. 51–65). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16, 409–421. http://dx .doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133
Yale Law School. (2008). I have a dream by Martin Luther King, Jr; August 28, 1963 [Speech transcript]. Retrieved from http://avalon.law .yale.edu/20th_century/mlk01.asp
Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist, 62, 6–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.6
Received May 25, 2020 Revision received July 3, 2020
Accepted July 7, 2020 �
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an Ps
yc ho
lo gi
ca l
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or on
e of
its al
lie d
pu bl
is he
rs .
T hi
s ar
tic le
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
474 CRAYNE AND MEDEIROS
- Making Sense of Crisis: Charismatic, Ideological, and Pragmatic Leadership in Response to COVID-19
- Sensemaking, Leadership, and COVID-19
- The CIP Model
- Charismatic Leaders
- Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada
- Ideological Leaders
- Jair Bolsonaro, President of Brazil
- Pragmatic Leaders
- Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany
- Integrating Sensemaking Into Our Leadership Paradigms
- Opportunities for Future Research
- Conclusion
- References
