For a leader, wicked problems are the most difficult problems to deal with because the leaders are unaware of the problems, all of its solutions and the right answer. The only way a wicked problem can be tackled is by asking questions and implementing clumsy solutions; and that can be achieved by asking questions (to appropriate people), working alongside stakeholders, exploring options, identifying the ‘best-fit’ solutions and adopting a creative problem-solving methodology. In today’s era, the most wicked problem is tackling with COVID-19. In this blog, I will be focusing on how Donald Trump and Narendra Modi initially responded to the COVID-19 problem in the US and India, respectively and compare their leadership approaches.
Firstly, let’s discuss how Donald Trump responded to this situation in his country. Initially, he took a quick decision to stop the travel from China and increased the airport screenings but he didn’t consider the disease as dangerous so he played it down and ignored the recommendations from the Public Health Community.[1][2] This led to a failure in providing the required number of quality testing because there were eligibility restrictions for taking a test i.e., only those who had recent travel history, had any respiratory problems and had come in contact with another COVID-19 patient were allowed to take a test.[3] This limited to know the true number of patients in the country. He and his government also failed to provide adequate PPE (personal protective equipment) protection including gloves, masks and gown increasing the human to human transmission of the disease.[3] Trump falsely advertised the medical benefits of anti-malarial drug chloroquine which created a lot of panic and hospitals stacking up the stock.[3] It was later proved that the drug was not only ineffective in treating COVID-19 but could also worsen some patient’s condition.[3] He even ridiculed the simple and effective measures such as social-distancing, wearing masks, maintaining hand hygiene and restricting indoor gatherings.[1] Although, he was responsible for increasing the hospitals bed and ventilators making them available for a larger number of patients[3]. In one of his speeches, he said that he played it down to prevent creating panic[4][5].
On the other hand, Narendra Modi took the disease very seriously from the very start and made quick decisions in implementing travel restrictions early in March. He and his government not only rescued his nationals from coronavirus-hotspots such as China but also rescued the other country’s nationals[6]. After a 14-hour curfew, Modi live televised to inform the citizens of India about the 21-days national lockdown (which was further extended a few times), its guidelines and implementations[6][7]. In his speeches, he not only made sure to appreciate the efforts of health professional and essential service providers, but also made an emotional appeal to the public with empathy to stick to the guidelines and the actions that would be taken if they were not followed[6][7]. He explained the importance of simple measures such as the mask wearing, social distancing and hand washing along with why these strict measures of lockdown were taking place and assured the public that this situation is manageable if cooperated by everyone[6]. Although, the professionals such as virologists believe that the national lockdown was done way too early in a wider community without giving enough time and resources to adjust, reducing its effectiveness[8]. He made appearance on Google Hangouts to understand his follower’s need[6]. He also called the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), made an initial contribution of $10 million and proposed to help the nations in SAARC in the times of need[6][7].
There were some common things in their approaches, for example, implementing travel restrictions and increasing airport screening at the start of the outbreak to detect the affected patients but at the same time their approaches differed as well, for instance, Modi tried to fully understand the problems that the citizens might be facing due to COVID-19 whereas Trump didn’t even believe that it was an important issue to deal with at the start of the outbreak.
• In order to successfully lead others through an emergent change, the leader should be capable of thinking in advance (including anticipating about an emergent change), understanding that people will react differently, reassuring that it’s alright to feel anxious, worried or scared, listening about the things that will make a difference to them, helping them to understand the goal and being truly honest about the impacts of the change. Modi worked with his government to made sure that his citizens were getting everything outlined above whereas Trump even ignored the suggestions by the Public Health Community of the US and ridiculed the simple protective measures[1][6].
• According to Mayfield’s research-based model, there are three main things that motivate followers and those are ‘direction-giving’, ‘meaning-making’ and ‘empathy’[9]. From these leader’s speeches and actions, it can be seen that while Trump’s approach mainly consisted of ‘direction-giving’, Modi’s approach had each element which helped him in gaining faithful followers.
• Adaptive leadership is the leadership where leaders try to encourage their followers to change their lifestyle to meet the new goals and challenges. This is type of leadership which is more follower-eccentric rather than leader-eccentric and in my opinion, this kind of leadership works best in leading through an emergent change[10]. While making an appeal to his citizens with empathy and communicating with them via Google Hangouts, Modi clearly showed his adaptive leadership whereas Trump failed to even recognize the needs of his citizens[1][6].
Hence, on comparing both the leader’s initial response to COVID-19, Modi’s approach surely gained more follower’s support than Trump’s approach.
Conclusively, I believe that the success while leading through an emergent change is dependent on leaders being creative and innovative and their willingness of taking appropriate risks. They should also be able to communicate well with their followers to explain their vision. In this particular example, I believe Trump’s ‘direction-giving’ approach became the reason of follower’s criticism in the US while Modi had all three elements, i.e., ‘direction-giving’, ‘meaning-making’ and ‘empathy’ in his approach which is why he was able to influence his followers in India to stick to the government’s guidelines.