How has the Covid-19 Pandemic Impacted Followership?

Mask or anti-mask. Vaccine or anti-vaccine. Hoax or reality. The world was spinning on its head and left in much uncertainty and fear. How was the world to combat this? Who could we rely and depend upon? Historically, perilous times have relied upon kings and governments and empires to exercise decisions and solutions to remedy and reassure the public. Time and time again, powerful figures and civilians have interacted in numerous ways to combat plagues and catastrophes. In ancient times, leprosy was a highly contagious disease. Lepers were often bandaged and instructed to carry bells, as to warn others from approaching. They were also placed in leper colonies, which led to their ostracization from communities. The black plague was said to be resolved through the implementation of quarantines, where the infected would be isolated from the healthy, and government officials would go door to door carefully inspecting and “cleansing” affected households. Effective leadership was necessary to combat these perilous times, yet it failed to be the only factor at hand. This past lesson emphasized the role of followership in the leadership process. Of course, without leaders, there is no followership and without followers, there is no leadership. However, as opposed to historical accounts, there was something novel about these interactions in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. One which altered the course of leadership effectiveness and behavior. This blog will examine these effects in a detailed manner. 

At the beginning of the pandemic, the United States was in a stage of uncertainty. There was much confusion over the origins of the virus, and on whether it was that severe or even deadly. The public was searching for answers and guidance, and one figure emerged as the leading expert. This was Anthony Fauci, the former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Chief Medical Advisor to the President. Before the pandemic, Fauci was not very well-known, and this factor played considerably into his credibility as a leader. At the start of the pandemic, Fauci became the voice of medicine. Although the guidelines and relevant information were supplemented by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), Fauci became the communicative voice for the American Public. It is at this point where the concept of assigned versus emergent leadership can be applied (Northouse, 2021). It seemed as though the CDC was the assigned leader in formulating educated knowledge in response to the pandemic. Their resources were acknowledged because of “their formal position in the organization” (Northouse, 2021, p. 44). Even so, Fauci was on every news media outlet, on every Health Department hearing and briefing, and he was quickly gaining the eyes and trust of the public. The public was perceiving Fauci as the most influential member of the group through emergent leadership (Northouse, 2021). Not only did he achieve this through a period of communication and guidance, but also through his personality. Stogdill’s second survey (1974) proposed a number of traits that positively correlated with Fauci’s leadership personality characteristics. From these traits, Fauci’s “self-confidence and sense of personal identity, and his capacity to structure social interaction systems to the purpose at hand” (Northouse, 2021, p. 65) proved to be most effective in his emergent leadership. His guidelines for social interactions in certain spaces uttered the beginnings of a “new normal”, one which heavily influenced interactions among individuals in a manner that has never been seen before in the 21st century. In analyzing the subsequent events of the pandemic, this second trait proved to have many implications to the matter of followership. 

Over the course of the pandemic, Fauci’s interviews and briefings led to a number of controversial beliefs on the nature of his medical advice, and on his full transparency. According to Powell and Prasad (2021), Fauci mentioned in an interview that he felt that community mask usage was not necessary, which confused many individuals in its effectiveness. Additionally, in a phone interview with the New York Times, Fauci reportedly adjusted his target range for herd immunity based on the surveys and polls of the American public to promote vaccine uptake (Powell and Prasad, 2021). As a result, there was a level of distrust that arose among the public, which subsequently influenced followership theories and their factors. 

In response to the pandemic, both leaders and followers played a role to achieve the common goal of health and safety, as well as a moral obligation regarding these goals (Northouse, 2021). Elements of the Zaleznik typology (1992) were represented from the beginning, since the public was very unaware and uninformed regarding the situation, which elicited the withdrawn, submissive/passive type of followership (Northouse, 2021). Yet at the same time, according to Chaleff’s typology (1995), the public took on a responsibility through serving a common purpose along with the leaders, which in turn made them more responsible, and “changed their internal estimates of their abilities to influence others, and develop a greater sense of agency” (Northouse, 2021, p. 445) Both of these typologies were present in the public at the beginning of the pandemic, and display the engagement of individuals in the leadership process. However, as the pandemic continued and revelations of Fauci’s inconsistencies were revealed (as mentioned in the previous paragraph), there was a point in which a new form of followership could be examined. The theoretical framework of reversing the lens (Uhl-Bien, 2014) played an enormous factor in the leader/follower relationship (Northouse, 2021). Specifically, this critical period emphasized that followers could be change agents through the “impact of the leaders’ perceptions and behavior on followers’ behaviors, and the impact of both followers and leaders on followership outcomes” (Northouse, 2021, p. 451). In application, the public was heavily influenced by leaders’ inconsistent behaviors and actions. People started to congregate more, schools opened, and states opened up many of their public facilities and relaxed Covid-19 guidelines. Fauci was put on the hot seat, and there were many hearings questioning his decisions and authority over the course of the pandemic, all which concluded with his resignation in December of 2022. From this perspective, some dark-side personality traits can be examined which are attributed to his unsuccessful downfall (Northouse, 2021). It can be argued that Fauci exhibited a degree of impulsivity and narcissism. Fauci tested limits in a variety of ways, and at some points neglected to see the consequences of his actions. He also seemed to be overly self-confident and had a strong sense of entitlement, which was seen in his rigid responses in hearings and interviews. His public health messaging was predicated on trust, which created an opportunity to communicate initiatives effectively. When that trust was shattered, messaging was no longer clear and straightforward, and the followership perspective took a different meaning with a number of factors and implications. 

When comparing the trait approach and the theories surrounding followership in the leadership process, and taking into consideration its effect on Anthony Fauci and the Covid-19 pandemic, it becomes apparent how much of an impact these theories have on effective leadership. It begs the question of how the public and government will interact if we ever have another pandemic. 

References

Northouse, P.G. (2021).  Leadership: Theory and Practice.  Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2016). PSYCH 281 Lesson 2: Introduction and History of I/O Psychology. Retrieved from https: / / courses.worldcampus. psu.edu/psych281sp1oxo3/ content/lessono2/printlesson.

Powell, K., & Prasad, V. (2021, July 28). The U.S. government’s noble lies about COVID-19. Slate Magazine. Retrieved January 27, 2023, from https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/noble-lies-covid-fauci-cdc-masks.html