THIRTEEN

Unleadership
Carol Jarvis, Hugo Gaggiotti and
Selen Kars-​Unluoglu

But the effect of her being on those around her was

incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world
is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are
not so ill with you and me as they might have been is half
owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life,
and rest in unvisited tombs. (George Eliot)1

COVID-​19 can be described as what the philosopher Giorgio

Agamben would call a ‘state of exception’, a crisis allowing
political leaders to extend the reach of their power beyond the
usual reach of the law, privileging further the voices of those
in power and diminishing the rights of citizens.2 Dissenting
voices, challenging the ‘truths’ of those in power, come to
be seen as treacherous, diverting time and resources away
from dealing with ‘the enemy’. In this chapter, we explore
how in both setting aside the desire to be ‘in control’ and in
stepping away from the competitive discourses of ‘us versus
the enemy’, what may emerge is a form of active citizenship
that both complies and resists but is neither compliant nor
resisting. We have termed the acts and practices associated
with this ‘unleadership’ as they turn our views of leadership
on their head.

125
 Life after COVID-19: The Other Side of Crisis

Leadership

Received notions of leadership portray leaders who mobilize

people towards a vision, inspire action and model the way, who
set the pace and expect self-​direction and excellence.3 The
stories of the heroic efforts of these leaders teach us lessons
on the importance of clarity of purpose, acts of boldness and
courage, dedication and self-​sacrifice. Those who are not
leaders are life’s bystanders –​‘hollow men’ as T.S. Eliot would
have described them4 –​infants afraid to take responsibility and
act; shirkers preoccupied with self-​interest, stripped away from
their creative capacities.5 More contemporary, post-​heroic,
leadership theories encourage shared or distributed leadership
practices. But these still assume an individual or small cadre to
‘empower’ followers to act and to provide a fertile ground for
others to flourish by nurturing them along the way.6 These
notions of leadership are underpinned by illusions: first, it is
possible for a leader always to be ‘in control’; second, being in
control is desirable and necessary; and third, being in control
assumes even greater importance in a ‘state of exception’ since
only the leader can command and mobilize the resources
needed to succeed.
Drawing on Agamben’s ideas, we argue that in normal
circumstances, leaders consider organizations to be in a ‘state
of potential perfection’ and their responsibility as to exercise
control in pursuit of perfection. Unexpected circumstances,
when they arise, are interpreted by leaders as ‘states of
exception’, threatening their organizations with the menace
of ‘permanent imperfection’. Agamben describes how these
menaces are characterized as ‘impurities’, often attributed to
immigrants, foreigners or others who are considered dangerous
(see Chapter Twelve in this book). The threat caused by the
menaces must be quashed at any cost. The leader must take
control and show strong, decisive leadership.
This control logic is reinforced by the ‘cometh the hour,
cometh the man’ discourse present in narratives of good

126
 Unleadership

leadership in times of crisis.7 Everyone expects leaders to rise

to the occasion, recognize threats rapidly, select the correct path
to take, unite the public and persuade them to follow through
on decisions. We could fill this chapter with examples of how
the ‘state of exception’ created by the COVID-​19 pandemic
has shown this control logic to be inadequate and illusionary.
Two that stand out from the UK are how the government’s
determination to keep centralized control over testing and the
provision of personal protective equipment (PPE) has resulted
in costly time delays and hindered provision.
When the UK government abandoned its initial ‘test and
trace’ strategy as the number of infections climbed, centralized
testing laboratories were set up, disregarding offers and capacity
from established and accredited laboratories. The government
planned to recruit and train 18,000 contact tracers, at the same
time that many of the 14,000 or so health inspectors employed
by local councils and familiar with the protocols, if not these
specific tests, were experiencing reduced workload with the
closure of bars and eateries. The control logic, similarly, is
evident in the approach to PPE provision. Reputable clothing
manufacturers such as Burberry and Barbour claim to have
offered to manufacture PPE through the official procurement
channels. After several weeks and many attempts at offering to
help, no response had been received. After the BBC covered
the story, the government’s response was to externalize the
problem, suggesting that the crisis was caused by health workers
using PPE irresponsibly. At the time of writing, as we move
into the next phase of lockdown management, having evidently
failed to exercise control over testing and PPE provision, the
government is now seeking to ‘control the virus’.
According to Agamben, ‘the theory of the state of exception
saw a moment of particular fortune’ between 1934 and 1948
when the metaphors of catastrophe associated with war lent
weight to the narrative that being in control is both possible and
desirable.8 The fantasy of being in control of the COVID-​19
pandemic is promoted using similar metaphors. The virus is

127
 Life after COVID-19: The Other Side of Crisis

being anthropomorphized into an enemy that we will ‘wrestle

to the ground’. We are ‘engaged in a war against the disease
which we have to win’, ‘going into battle’ against it ‘armed’
with strategies of containment and suppression, our defences
manned by ‘key workers’ (many of whom were until recently
classified as ‘unskilled’, many of whom have been starved of
resources). But how do you wage war on an invisible enemy –​
an enemy that is not ‘out there’ but has jumped across borders
to be in ‘us’? How can leadership survive when the narrative
leaders rely on is rendered obsolete?
COVID-​19 has upended the rhetoric that only the leader
can command the resources to succeed in the face of the
threat of permanent imperfection, supporting Naomi Klein’s
assertion that established leaders can often make things worse
in a crisis, by externalizing the problem and treating other
people as though they are responsible for it.9

Unleadership

In a state of exception, people are expected to show allegiance

to the leader and forego creativity, self-​initiative and self-​
leadership. With COVID-​19, we have instead seen the
opposite, with leadership coming from unexpected places.
Within weeks, while many formal leaders across the world
dithered, pivoted and pirouetted, companies, communities,
neighbourhoods and individuals picked up the leadership
mantle, taking responsibility, upskilling themselves intellectually
and emotionally, and making their own decisions. What has
emerged from the shadows is a set of acts and practices that
we have termed ‘unleadership’.
Beyond acts of good neighbourliness, individuals have used
their resources and resourcefulness, without being asked but
taking timely, creative and informed action for social good.
A 15-​year-​old boy spent a Sunday evening designing a full-​
face protective plastic masks that can be 3D-​printed; a doctor
has set up a website taking orders from hospitals and bringing

128
 Unleadership

together more than 5,000 volunteers to 3D-​print plastic visor

parts to meet those orders; chefs have been working in their
home kitchens to prepare and deliver meals to vulnerable
people. When demand outstrips resources, many have turned
to crowdfunding to continue their efforts. Small independent
businesses have rethought their place in the supply chain to
meet the needs of their community: the local delicatessen that
responded to the pasta shortage in supermarkets by buying
bags from their supplier and selling them on at cost.
What do we mean by unleadership? We have adopted the
term as it turns assumptions on their head. Unleadership is
not a theory; it is embodied and can only be experienced
or practised. It describes the spontaneous, uncontrolled
practices and initiatives that have come to the fore during
the state of exception of COVID-​19. Below we summarize
its elements.

• Unleadership is a proactive gesture, the best

contribution I  can make to others and the social
order in my current circumstances without an
anticipated personal benefit. The gesture is made with
a social intention in a spirit of compassion, generosity and
optimism. These gestures have uncertain consequences,
requiring a twist of attention from anticipated results to the
quality of my contribution.
• Unleaders do not seek to control events. They take
responsibility for their acts but they do not seek to –​and
cannot –​control the response to them. Ralph Stacey’s theory
of Complex Responsive Processes of Relating10 suggests we
can influence –​but not control –​the response of others,
and reduce uncertainty, by paying attention to our gestures.
• Unleaders are journeying into the unknown,
with no clear vision of their destination and with
no achievement motivation beyond ‘making a
difference’. While they are likely to have a clear purpose,
they do not have a clear vision for the results of their acts.

129
 Life after COVID-19: The Other Side of Crisis

There is no grand plan. Rather, actions evolve in line with

the response they get.
• Unleaders have the courage to act into the unknown
and to admit to not knowing. In so doing, they are
making themselves ‘vulnerable’ to ‘failure’ or to being
‘wrong’. However, they do not seek the mantle of
invulnerability, or claim to know right from wrong, or search
for success. The risks of appearing vulnerable or being seen
as a failure are, then, inconsequential.
• Unleadership is not alternative leadership or a
response to lack of leadership. Unleaders do not define
themselves and their acts in relation to the dominant (or
alternative) narratives. They take responsibility without
waiting for permission, or for authority to be delegated.
Empowerment is irrelevant.
• Unleaders’ acts are not dependent on securing
the commitment of others. They have no particular
interest in generating followers. Nor do unleaders believe
they have all the answers; they recognize the limits of their
knowledge and resources and willingly enrol and/​or pass on
responsibility to better-​placed others when they reach their
limits. Nonetheless, unleaders may still succeed in framing
and defining the reality of others even though that is not
their intent.
• Unleaders act in the here and now, paying, rather
than seeking, attention. In escaping from future
predictions, unleaders can thrive in uncertainty and
ambiguity. Complexity is subordinate to the capacity to
act. By acting on the basis of the insight and information
available to them now, unleaders can take timely, thoughtful
action.

An example of unleadership in the UK that has gained a lot

of attention is the story of Captain (now Colonel, soon to be
Sir) Tom Moore. Captain Tom had a fall, nearly ending his
life, and recovered due to care he received from the NHS.

130
 Unleadership

In recognition, he set himself a challenge to walk 100 laps

of his garden with his walking frame in the weeks leading
up to his 100th birthday. He set up a charity website in the
hope of raising £1,000, seeing this as his best possible gesture
given his circumstances. Events took an unexpected turn
when first the local media and then the BBC got hold of the
story. When put in the spotlight, he accepted the attention
gracefully, with optimism and humility, and with no fear of
being perceived as vulnerable or of failing to reach his goal. On
being congratulated on his achievement, he replied: “People
keep saying what I’ve done is remarkable. However, it’s actually
what you’ve done for me which is remarkable.” At the time of
writing, Captain Tom had raised £33 million. And although
he did not set out to do so, he has inspired others to take on
their own challenges.
Public figures have also demonstrated unleadership, using
their networks without seeking or claiming attention. For
example, while government ministers were deflecting attention
and scapegoating professional footballers as greedy, overpaid
young men (many of them from overseas and from less
privileged backgrounds), it emerged that Liverpool Football
Club’s captain, Jordan Henderson, had been liaising with other
club captains to co​ordinate donations from their players to
NHS Charities Together. Equally, when Liverpool Member
of Parliament and founder of Fans Supporting Foodbanks,
Ian Byrne, raised the alarm around the impact on local
communities of the loss of match-​day donations, Henderson
responded immediately. Within hours, the players and club
had contributed £40,000 to offset the shortfall.

A future for unleadership?

What we are experiencing with COVID-​19 differs from

distributed or shared leadership; leaders are not working
collaboratively with other stakeholders to create, nurture and
sustain empowering environments and are not seeking creative

131
 Life after COVID-19: The Other Side of Crisis

ways to energize engagement. Conversely, without waiting for

the leadership activities to be distributed, without an invitation
to change the social order, unleaders –​clothing manufacturers,
footballers, high school students, frontline health professionals,
retired army personnel, members of the local community –​are
acting unbidden.
‘Leadership’ is emerging from all directions, from everywhere
and nowhere, although rarely from the expected sources of
alternative leadership, such as trade unions, opposition political
parties, specialist advisers, and even much of the mainstream
media. Stuck in the discourse of war-​like competition, they
have mostly been curiously silent or come extremely late to
the conversation. Perhaps they have been paralyzed by the
scale of the challenge, the speed of development, and –​like the
government –​have been too wedded to unrealizable notions
of control? Overly concerned with the personal risk attached
to showing outright dissent at a time when national unity and
pulling together is seen to be required? Unleadership shows
a way forward based not on opposition to or power over, but
rather on collaboration and co-​creation with. This disrupts and
displaces the powerful stories of capitalism described in Chapter
Two, and its associated values of competition, individualism,
self-​serving interest and consumerism.
COVID-​1 9 has uncovered both time to reflect and
opportunities to act, to bring new social value in creative
ways. This resonates with Rebecca Solnit’s suggestion that
creativity and improvisation born of necessity in times of crisis
can open new possibilities, something that all of the chapters in
this book exemplify.11 As we emerge from the current virus-​
induced state of exception, what might be the legacy of this
flourishing of unleadership? If nothing else remains, hundreds
of thousands, if not millions, of people across the world will
have undertaken acts of unleadership and experienced the
power of making a thoughtful, proactive gesture. And many
millions will have realized the value of what George Eliot
terms ‘unhistoric acts’ in their everyday lives, and will perhaps

132
 Unleadership

be inspired to do likewise. Much of this learning may be

carried into the future, to the benefit of us all. The emphasis
then switches to the quality of gestures. When things don’t
go as anticipated, unleaders re-​evaluate their gestures. Since
unleadership is appreciative, the more you practise it, the more
agency you uncover. If we can carry this learning forward into
our collective lives after COVID-​19, we will see not only a
flourishing of creativity, but also the humanizing of our work
and lives.
Unleadership also has implications for how business
schools seek to develop the executives of the future. While
unleadership can be learnt, it cannot be taught. Unleadership
is developed through experience and practice. Instead of the
‘expert’ monologue of lectures and textbooks, unleadership
will be communicated through experiential and inclusive
approaches that value a diversity of voices. In business schools
of the future, unleadership will be fostered in spaces that have
sharing, discussing, questioning and co-​creating at the core of
their ethos.12 A plethora of more creative approaches will come
to the fore, from reflective walks to participant observations,
from journaling and poetry, to drawing and film making.
If we must stick with the metaphors of war, perhaps we
should be looking instead to what the distinguished British
scientist Paul Nurse described as the ‘Dunkirk moment’  –​
referencing the evacuation of the British army from France
on a flotilla of small boats in 1940 –​by turning attention to
the frontline, to other ‘key workers’, and those whose actions
help to keep us safe. In the UK, COVID-​19 has exposed the
limitations of strong leaders who cling determinedly to the
illusion of control. The government seems to have missed
its small boats moment, underestimating both their citizens’
willingness to limit their individual freedoms for the common
good, and their creativity and resourcefulness in working
around the barriers created by centralized control.
Paradoxically, in relinquishing attempts to remain in control
and accepting, if not embracing, imperfections, the practice

133
 Life after COVID-19: The Other Side of Crisis

of unleadership has the potential to move us towards a ‘good

enough’ ‘state of potential perfection’. We can imagine the
emergence of a self-​confident society, not promoting strong
leaders but instead seeking leadership from everywhere and
nowhere. We all have the potential to be unleaders, and in
life after COVID-​19 we hope that many more of us will be.

134