The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Introduction to the special issue: Why the coronavirus crisis is also a crisis of leadership
Open accessAbstract
This editorial introduction argues that the coronavirus crisis is also a crisis of leadership theory and practice. Decision making is particularly hazardous when we have poor evidence to guide us and face unpredictable outcomes. Mainstream leadership theories are of little help, since an environment of radical uncertainty means that leaders have less information, expertise and resources to guide them than is often assumed. Undaunted, populist leaders exploit uncertainty to suggest that simple solutions will work. I suggest that the responses of such leaders have been characterised by incompetent leadership, denialist leadership, panic leadership, othering leadership and authoritarian leadership. I also consider the implications of the crisis for business leadership, suggesting that already strained relationships within organisations are likely to deteriorate still further. Critical leadership studies has an important contribution to make in challenging self-serving theories of business that have come to guide much leadership decision-making. We have an opportunity to do research that really matters, and participate in vital conversations about how the theory and practice of leadership can contribute to better outcomes from the coronavirus crisis, and others still to come.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Various studies have attributed these differences to factors such as social trust, leadership, social cohesion, and public sector capacity (Lofredo 2020; Mazzucato and Kattel 2020; Tourish 2020; Fukuyama and Lopez-Calva, 2021).”
From Risk Governance, State Capacity, and Critical Human Security: Evolution of Risk Governance in Response to Systemic Risk in the UK and South Korea (2025) · cites this paper as Tourish 2020
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 17 · Cited by 138
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Clearfield C, 2018, Meltdown: Why Our Systems Fail and What We Can Do about It
- Foucault M, 1977, Discipline and Punish
- Kay J, 2020, Radical Uncertainty: Decision-Making for an Unknowable Future
- Kershaw I, 1998, Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris
- Pinker S, 2018, Enlightenment Now
- Tetlock P, 2005, Expert Political Judgement
- 10.5465/amle.2019.0255 · DOI
Metadata
- Authors
- Tourish, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Sussex (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Tourish, Dennis
- ORCID
- Tourish, Dennis
- Venue
- Leadership
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2020-05-26
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 261-272
- ISSN
- 1742-7150 (ISSN-L)
- 1742-7169
- OpenAlex
- W3031816121
- Cited by
- 138
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 7
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Leadership (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Sussex Research Online (University of Sussex) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Political Analysis
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Leadership and Management in Organizations
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Leadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies
- Keywords
- COVID-19 pandemic, leadership crisis, radical uncertainty, decision making under uncertainty, populist leadership, authoritarian leadership, corporate leadership, organizational relationships, critical leadership studies
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Introduction to the special issue: Why the coronavirus crisis is also a crisis of leadership. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1742715020929242
- The paper
- Tourish, D. (2020). Introduction to the special issue: Why the coronavirus crisis is also a crisis of leadership. Leadership. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715020929242