Tragic, brutal, devastating, unconscionable – the war of aggression by Russia on the Ukrainian people is all these and much more. The need for leadership to emerge in defense of Ukraine has been evident and urgent. And so it has emerged, in the seemingly unlikely persona of President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Commentaries about his leadership in the Western press are unfailingly laudatory, as they should be. Typical observations are these:

“At the centre of this has been Volodymyr Zelensky, the country’s unlikely president. Having spent months playing down the threat of war he has made an astonishingly rapid transformation from hapless political outsider to wartime hero and global icon of decency. His charisma and acting background have suited him perfectly to a war immersed in social media.” (The Economist, March 5/22)

“While his country is in crisis, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is emerging as a masterful communicator and charismatic leader whose management style is reminiscent of some of the greatest statesmen in history … [he has] ‘leadership presence’ … a master of this moment in ways that we rarely see … on-point messaging and unwavering dedication to the cause … excel(s) at general management – juggling a number of urgent and often disparate issues at once.” (Wharton Business Daily, March 22/22)

Some of these characterizations are valid, some are off the mark, and none really capture the essence of what has compelled us to see Zelensky emerge as a leader. The usual suspects have been invoked:

 charisma (a mysterious and ill-defined attribute at best, largely in the eye of the beholder, and arguably not really Zelensky’s strongest point; also, not unique to, nor necessary for, leadership)

 “leadership presence” (explaining leadership by using the word leadership doesn’t tell us much)

 masterful communicator (yes, essential, but not unique to leaders)

 unwavering dedication to the cause (yes but, again, not unique to leaders)

 management style/excel(s) at general management (as I’ve argued extensively in previous posts, management and leadership are profoundly different social relationships; managerial effectiveness may contribute to leadership effectiveness, but it’s not why people perceive leadership to emerge)

So what is it that Zelensky is doing beyond these characterizations that is at the heart of our perception of him as a leader?

As my research has revealed, leaders engage, align and mobilize people by meaningfully challenging, or meaningfully resisting challenges to, systems and the status quo, and accumulate and wield non-coercive power in doing so. Through their communication and actions, they induce others to see existing situations in a significantly altered light, compelling them to think and act differently to create a desired new reality. And no particular set of character traits, behavioural styles or other properties is uniquely suited to doing this.

Leadership is most often associated with creating change. But sometimes it’s not about change; it manifests instead as meaningful resistance to change and militating against system disruption to preserve the status quo. This dimension of leadership is not generally well understood nor explored in the literature or in practice.

President Zelensky is indeed “unwavering in his dedication to the cause”. He is indomitable and resolute in spirit and in action as he strives to defend the Ukrainian system and status quo and restore stability to the greatest extent possible. He uses all sorts of tactics and techniques in service of this – masterful communication, uniquely tailored to the audience at hand, all the while dressed in his trademark fatigues; physically showing up to be with and support his soldiers in the field; not leaving the country despite offers of asylum elsewhere, but staying in Kyiv at great risk to himself and his family; juggling multiple political, economic and other challenges domestically and internationally; and so on. But all these tactics are in support of meaningfully resisting the monumental challenge of an existential threat to his country’s status quo.

In so doing he has accrued substantial personal authority, conferred on him by the Ukrainian people as well as by the international community, much beyond that institutionally conferred by his presidential office. He then uses this power in conjunction with his formal authority to mobilize and guide the country and strategically further the cause of his people in the international arena. This is similar to what Winston Churchill did in Britain at the outset of WWII in a then largely isolationist world, engaging, aligning and mobilizing the British population for war and agitating US President Franklin Roosevelt and others internationally to join forces in the fight. And, similarly to Churchill, Zelensky seems to be the right person for the moment. Leadership emergence is very much dependent on the individual in conjunction with the prevailing situation. Churchill didn’t shine nearly as much in the public’s mind as a leader before WWII or after.

This sustained, meaningful resistance to an overwhelming challenge to the status quo, with no playbook for guidance, coupled with accrual of associated non-coercive power to engage, align and mobilize followers, is unique to leadership. It’s not just about the usual suspects – the tactics – used more broadly by individuals, leaders or otherwise. It’s about the underlying essence that the tactics support, particular to leaders.

Let’s hope this iconic display of leadership and the multitude of committed actions it has mobilized will enable Ukraine to prevail.