Skip to content

Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand Prime Minister
Photo Credit: commons.wikipedia.com

 

I am an academic. I like to think that I am driven by facts and evidence. However, I am also an idealist. I search for hope and optimism around me, despite the ‘global leadership crisis’ in which we find ourselves. In my classes, I talk about shifting, dissolving realities and the complexities of issues. I remind students of the importance of wisdomover knowledge and practice. I talk about humanizing leaders.

Despite my caution, since the Christchurch mosques shooting, I have watched Jacinda Ardern, the Prime Minister, with curiosity and awe. Her actions are swift and appropriate. She wasted no time in making a commitment to fix the lax gun laws in New Zealand. In fact, she promised to announce reforms within 10 days of shooting. She did not hesitate to condemn terrorism. She refused to utter the shooter’s name, simply calling him an extremist, terrorist and criminal.

In an environment where public confidence with political leaders is at its lowest globally, Jacinda has reminded us what it means to be a humanistic leader. In her response to the terrorist attacks in Christchurch, she has demonstrated strong positive values in embracing the victims and in defining New Zealand to the world. She has argued that New Zealand was targeted because of its values of diversity, kindness, compassion, “a home for those who share it and a refuge for those who need it”. In an interview with BBC, she has stood firm on New Zealand's record on accepting refugees, saying: "We are a welcoming country. I utterly reject the idea that in any way in trying to ensure that we have a system that looks after those who choose to call New Zealand home, that we have perpetuated an environment where this kind of ideology can exist." She has called for a united global action and stated, "What New Zealand experienced here was violence brought against us by someone who grew up and learned their ideology somewhere else. If we want to make sure globally that we are a safe and tolerant and inclusive world we cannot think about this in terms of boundaries."

She has not fudged the main issues, rather pushed for the necessary change. In this moment, she has united the nation (and the world) in grief. She has hugged Muslim women as she visited the mosque and victims; held them tight, listened to them intently and whispered comforting words. She has shown us the authenticity with which leaders need to interact with their followers.

Jacinda said last August: “You can be pragmatic and grow an economy and improve well-being and do all of the things you have an expectation governments do, but do it with a bit of heart.” As I review her words and actions, she has come across a leader who integrates idealism with pragmatism. In doing so, she has left me with hope, and inspiration. She has established high moral values and given us the possibility of positive social change, and transformation.

I remain cautious. I don’t see her as a super hero, nor is it my intention to present her as one. However, in the past week or so, I have seen her playing the role of a culture builder, peace keeper, and using her leadership power to protect the less privileged as well as promote social change. I have seen her speak with a purpose. I have seen her engage with the local and global audience with a great sense of responsibility. Craving for authenticity, responsibility and humanism from our leaders, would I be wrong in stating: we need more leaders like her globally? It may be the Women Power or Jacinda-mania sweeping over me.

Decision makingCreative Commons License Matthias Ripp via Compfight

Conceptualizing Responsible and Humanistic Leadership within the Asian Context- and Why

Leaders around the world are faced with pressing challenges. Growing levels of inequality, corruption and poverty, and challenges of peace, justice, and sustainable economic growth are complex and widespread. It is within this backdrop that disappointment with ‘how organizations and societies are being led’ has been growing globally. The 2017 Edleman Trust Barometer, an instrument that has been measuring global confidence in institutions, businesses and governments since 2012, indicated general public distrust with all 4 major institutions, business, NGO, media and the government. Many commentators and academics have attributed the worldwide rise of populism to this distrust (Khilji, 2017). People’s concerns with the social challenges they face, have begun to show up as their fears and in their anger.

The ground beneath us has been shifting steadily. As management scholars, we have tolerated and oftentimes perpetuated a gap between society and organizations and their leaders. For decades, we have held on to misconceived assumptions about good leadership, which has been focused primarily on personality or psychological traits and their development. Pirson (2017) in his book, Humanistic Management, argues for a ‘fundamental rethinking of how we organize at the global political level, the societal level, the economic level, and the organizational level’ (p. 1). Kempster & Carroll (2016) contend that the problems we face today require a ‘big picture, multiple party, long term-process’ (p. 1). Inherent in these statements is the call for business leaders to consider social problems. Pless (2007) defines leadership as the ‘…motivation and commitment for achieving sustainable values creation and social change” (p. 438).

In recent years, the idea of responsible leadership, with its emphasis on values-based and principles-driven relation between leader and the stakeholders, has gained prominence, particularly because of the enactment of UN Global Compact (UNGC) (Stahl & De Luque, 2014). One may ask: in what ways are responsible leadership and humanistic leadership relevant in Asia; and how do Asian organizations/ leaders contribute to the idea of global responsibility. In my address, I adopt a romantic view to emphasize responsible and humanistic leadership as a multi-level practice that connects individual, organizational and institutional factors, while highlighting the need for a paradigmatic shift in leadership. In conclusion, I present a variety of questions for the audience to engage them in research and informed practice. 

This keynote was presented at a conference in March 2018. For a complete paper, please contact the author directly at sekhilji@gwu.edu