This article evaluates the Covid-19 crisis response of top leaders of 20 selected countries from January to May 2020 using anecdotal evidence from media sources and insights from the available crisis management and leadership literature. The main objective of the article is to examine whether the Covid-19 crisis experience and outcome of sample countries are related to their leaders’ behaviour and actions. Based on leaders’ orientation towards certain action motives and action and leadership styles, the article classifies the leaders’ action and leadership styles. The article finds that the leaders with a ‘ missionary’ action style displayed positive leadership styles and generally had the best Covid-19 outcomes, while those with a ‘ gamer’ action style were associated with negative leadership styles and poorer outcomes, with those with ‘political’ and ‘strategist’ action styles falling in between. To validate the impact of evolving leader behaviour on Covid-19 outcomes, the article evaluates the average daily growth of Covid-19 cases in the subsequent (post-analysis) seven weeks and tests the mean differences between different style groups. The tests indicate a significant difference in the outcomes between different style groups except between ‘gamers’ and ‘strategists’. The difference is more pronounced when the BRI[.]S countries (i.e., BRICS minus China) in various combinations are excluded from the test. A similar conclusion arises for the negatively and positively oriented leadership styles. Thus, while finding a relationship of leadership behaviour with Covid-19 outcomes, the article also provides a reason to suspect the role of socio-economic and institutional factors in clouding or confounding the leadership effect in view of the distinctive behaviour of OECD and the large emerging countries.

This paper analyses the personal strategy driving COVID-19 crisis behaviours of 20 country leaders. It explains the concept of personal strategy and establishes its theoretical basis. It also reviews leaders’ COVID-19 action contexts, actions and associated dynamics to infer the personal strategy driving their behaviour. The article finds the best personal strategy for COVID-19 crisis management as ‘crisis resolution’ and its variants adopted by leaders with a track record in crisis management or facing serious political compulsions—the latter, with a ‘career turnaround’ motive, were focused on erasing unfavourable political image. Leaders following personal strategies of self or negative orientations were the least successful or most unpopular. The article categorizes personal strategies broadly as crisis-focused, negative-focused, ideology-focused and mixed-focused, and it shows that personal goals and personal strategies of country leaders could be interpreted with existing theories. Drawing from a previous study on the same 20 leaders, the article shows that personal strategy of ‘crisis-focus’ is associated with positive styles of crisis action and leader behaviour, ‘negative-focus’ is related to negative action and behavioural styles, and ‘mixed-focus’ is linked to ‘strategic’ actions and transactional behaviour. Except for ideology-focus, leaders’ choice of personal strategy is not found exclusively related to the developmental or geopolitical status of their countries, which proves that personal strategy is a leader phenomenon. Differences in personal strategy among leaders led to different results in different countries—positive orientation resulted in positive outcomes and negative focus caused negative outcomes. The article concludes that personal strategy as a medium of transmitting leader traits into leader behaviour through support of personal goal can fill the gap in the current literature in connecting personal traits to leader behaviour.

No abstract

Learning outcomes To evaluate a difficult career choice under compelling organizational circumstances. To analyse a complex organizational culture to understand the nuances of career decisions. To relate career dilemmas to relevant conceptual and theoretical strands of organizational behaviour. To interpret the leadership style and its interaction with organizational culture. To determine possible strategic recourses to deal with the dynamics of destructive leadership and toxic cultures. Case overview/synopsis The case is about the experiences of Raamit Pell, a Middle-level Executive at Accadia Management Services, and his encounters with a new boss, Pret Sohn. Raamit Pell had joined Accadia at a time when the organization was undergoing some political and cultural turmoil. When Pret Sohn came in as the new Chief Executive Officer six months later, there were a lot of expectations. But, Pret Sohn too began following Accadia’s existing political culture, indulging in unhealthy organizational practices. He caused mental harassment to many executives. One such executive was Raamit Pell. Despite Raamit’s excellent performance, Pret Sohn denied him a well-deserved promotion. Sohn justified it by saying that performance alone did not matter. Raamit felt deeply disturbed and considered quitting Accadia. He was reluctant to leave as a defeated man. Subsequently, he received an offer from another subsidiary of Accadia’s holding agency. As he was undergoing a three-month mandatory notice period for his release, Raamit became concerned about his decision to leave Accadia. Deep in his mind he longed to redeem his hurt pride at Accadia. So, he was pondering whether he had taken the decision to resign in haste. Complexity academic level Level: Post-graduate/doctoral and executive education programmes in management and allied subjects. Courses: Courses in Career Decisions, Organizational Behaviour, Leadership, Organizational Culture and Organizational Ethics. Supplementary materials Teaching Notes are available for educators only. Subject code CSS 7: Management Science.