The document discusses how leaders' approaches to sensemaking influence their responses to crises like COVID-19. It introduces the charismatic, ideological, pragmatic (CIP) leadership model, which identifies three sensemaking styles - charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic. Sensemaking is critical for crisis management, as leaders must interpret events and communicate their perspective to motivate action. The responses to COVID-19 have varied greatly between leaders due to differences in their sensemaking styles. Case studies of three world leaders exemplify how their CIP style shaped their pandemic approach. Understanding leaders' sensemaking provides insight into varied crisis responses.
This PowerPoint helps students to consider the concept of infinity.
Making Sense of Crisis Charismatic, Ideological, and Pragmati.docx
1. 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
2. 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
3. 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
9. 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
10. 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;
11. 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
16. 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
17. 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.
18. 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-
19. 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
23. 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-
24. 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
25. 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
26. 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
31. 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
32. 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
33. 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
34. 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
39. 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.,
40. 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
41. 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
42. 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
46. 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
47. 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.
48. 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-
49. 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
54. 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
55. 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
56. 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
57. 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
61. 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.,
62. 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
63. 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-
64. 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
69. 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-
70. 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
71. 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
72. 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
76. 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
77. 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.
78. 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
79. 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
80. 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
81. 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
82. 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-
83. 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
87. di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
472 CRAYNE AND MEDEIROS
https://www.npr.org/2015/10/20/450171067/trudeau-elected-
canadas-prime-minister-as-liberals-assume-power
https://www.npr.org/2015/10/20/450171067/trudeau-elected-
canadas-prime-minister-as-liberals-assume-power
https://www.npr.org/2015/10/20/450171067/trudeau-elected-
canadas-prime-minister-as-liberals-assume-power
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1167748
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-04-
28/bolsonaros-latest-crisis-threatens-brazils-virus-response
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-04-
28/bolsonaros-latest-crisis-threatens-brazils-virus-response
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.12.003
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34576429
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.12.006
https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-brazil-
politics/update-2-divisions-over-brazils-coronavirus-response-
grow-idUSL1N2BO0JW
https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-brazil-
90. 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-
91. 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
92. 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
93. 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-
94. 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?
95. 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-
96. 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
97. 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
101. em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
473SENSEMAKING IN COVID-19 RESPONSE
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-
columnists/2020/04/29/justin-trudeau-deserves-credit-for-his-
handling-of-an-unprecedented-crisis.html
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.008
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.008
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/22/justin-trudeau-
the-rise-and-fall-of-a-political-brand
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/22/justin-trudeau-
the-rise-and-fall-of-a-political-brand
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/22/justin-trudeau-
the-rise-and-fall-of-a-political-brand
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/07/opinions/terence-kealey-
south-korea-listened-to-the-experts/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/07/opinions/terence-kealey-
south-korea-listened-to-the-experts/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/08/politics/trump-reopen-
economy-pivot-health-recovery-recession/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/08/politics/trump-reopen-
economy-pivot-health-recovery-recession/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/08/politics/trump-reopen-
economy-pivot-health-recovery-recession/index.html
105. call-for-protests-against-coronavirus-lockdown
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-
106. 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
107. 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-
108. 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.
109. 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
113. us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
474 CRAYNE AND MEDEIROS
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-
updates/2020/03/27/822440615/supporters-of-brazils-bolsonaro-
call-for-protests-against-coronavirus-lockdown
https://news.yahoo.com/germany-praised-handling-covid-19-
116. Crisis: Charismatic, Ideological, and Pragmatic Leadership in
Response to COVID-19Sensemaking, Leadership, and COVID-
19The CIP ModelCharismatic LeadersJustin Trudeau, Prime
Minister of CanadaIdeological LeadersJair Bolsonaro, President
of BrazilPragmatic LeadersAngela Merkel, Chancellor of
GermanyIntegrating Sensemaking Into Our Leadership
ParadigmsOpportunities for Future
ResearchConclusionReferences
Week 8
Quinesha Johnson
Marshall D. Mays, D. Min.
Virginia University of Lynchburg
10-30-22
117. Read chapter twelve in the textbook and submit a 3 page
reflection paper on The Continuing Quest for the Historical
Jesus.
