Pandemic Inquiry Exposes Leadership Failings

The official public inquiry into the U.K. Government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic was never going to be especially comforting. But the picture that has emerged this week is highly disturbing. Through WhatsApp messages and emails exchanged between ministers and officials as well as evidence given to the inquiry, which is due to run until the summer of 2026, there is the clear impression that there was no real plan for dealing with the virus. In particular, the man who was supposedly in charge — then prime minister Boris Johnson — was, according to the country’s most senior civil servant, Simon Case, “changing strategic direction every day.” This view was apparently echoed by Sir Patrick Vallance, the government’s chief scientific adviser at the time, who in his contemporaneous diary released to the inquiry accused Johnson of “ridiculous flip-flopping.” More damning still, Dominic Cummings, supposedly Johnson’s closest adviser, described the then prime minister as a shopping trolley swerving unpredictably from side to side. The image was apparently used by insiders to describe Johnson at the height of the pandemic.

These are serious accusations to make against any leader. When they concern the person who was supposedly heading the fight against a deadly virus they are scarcely believable. But then other evidence to the inquiry suggests that there was a general level of chaos and dysfunction within government that would have alarmed the public if they had known of its full extent at the time.

Leave aside for a moment the fact that the evidence so far points to a government failing in its most basic task — protecting its people. What this appears to be is a colossal failure of leadership. And it brings to mind one of the key messages of When Everyone Leads, a book published earlier this year by the founder and chief leadership development officer at the Kansas Leaderships Center. “Leadership has nothing to do with role. It has everything to do with seeing and seizing moments to help a group move forward,” they write. Elsewhere, while pointing out that most people follow rather than lead, they note: “Followership plays out most clearly among politicians. Politicians are lagging indicators of what’s going on in society. Change rarely starts with them. A politician anticipates what their voters want and then follows the crowd that put them in office.” Johnson, of course, was famed for his ability to defy party lines and to win elections on the strength of his personality. In other words, he anticipated what people wanted rather than — until it was arguably too late and all else had failed — tell harsh truths and make difficult decisions.

Other factors will no doubt be found to have played a part in the U.K.’s response to this greatest of challenges. Already, for instance, there have been suggestions that a lack of diversity of thought contributed to the lack of appropriate planning. But in the end a crisis demands leadership and — as is so often the case, not just in politics, but in business and elsewhere — it was lacking.

When Everyone Leads is aimed at all sorts of people and all sorts of organizations. But it does seem to have a particular relevance to politics. Perhaps that is because Ed O’Malley, the founder of the Kansas Leadership Center and one of the authors, is a former Kansas state senator and gubernatorial aide, while the origins of the center back in 2007 lie in a desire in part to improve communities. But just consider the statements at the heart of what O’Malley and co-author Julia Fabris McBride call their “countercultural” approach.

“Leadership is an activity, not a position.”

“Leadership is mobilizing others to make progress on our most important challenges.”

“Leadership is always about change.”

“Leadership is engaging others, weaving connections between people who think differently and value different things.”

“Leadership is helping people accept loss. That’s why leadership is risky.”

“No one exercises leadership without a clear and compelling purpose.”

While the last of these echoes ideas we would expect to see in just about any management book these days, the others are somewhat unusual. But O’Malley and McBride, a certified coach and former actor, insist that they suit the current turbulent times. The notion of leadership the statements describe “places the common good at the centre. And when we place the common good at the centre we realise that although we each have tremendous power to make a difference, our individual power, expertise and ability will never be enough.”

The pandemic may be over — although the virus itself persists — but there are plenty of other crises, notably in Ukraine and the Middle East, where it is clear traditional approaches to leadership do not appear to be working. Perhaps the people from Kansas should be given a go.