The theme of this year’s  Research for Development Impact (RDI) Network conference was on Leadership for Inclusive Development. Before I attended the conference in June, I asked my peers to share their thoughts on what they thought leadership for inclusive development meant. It was an interesting conversation as we collectively reflected on the question, the nature of leadership in PNG, and what was needed to support leadership that promoted inclusive development. This blog will draw on some of their ideas and my reflections on the RDI conference.

In opening the RDI conference, Deputy Prime Minister of Samoa, the Hon Fiame Naomi Mata’afa, spoke about the collective Pacifica identity. She described it as being the interconnectedness that Pacific Islanders have to each other, the land and the sea; and community being central to decision making. Hon Fiame spoke about the importance of having a strong sense of identity and understanding of contextual and cultural dynamics – these were key to her leadership journey. For her leadership was service, an act of using her privilege to ensure that the needs and priorities of her people were represented on the many platforms she was on.

However, despite the communal nature of her society, the patriarchal structures of leadership continued to define how leadership, inclusion and participation in decision making happened.  For her, despite coming from a chiefly Matai family in the Samoan culture, she had to fight to prove her legitimacy, most of which was done through visible service to the community.  Her context is quite like that of Papua New Guinea, where systemic inequalities exist in our communities. Interestingly, when the founding fathers of PNG set out to write the preamble of our constitution, they articulated through the five National Goals and Directive Principles, a set of principles that they hoped would guide this nation. They emphasised through goal number two the principle of equality and participation where it states: “We declare our second goal to be for all citizens to have an equal opportunity to participate in, and benefit from, the development of our country”. Some of my peers argue, if only the nostalgia of the goals resulted in the leadership, it articulates. So what is the nature of leadership required to give life to the spirit of the constitution and how can a nation as culturally diverse as PNG, pursue development that is inclusive for all her people?

Throughout the conference, different speakers spoke about the importance of understanding the context-specific dynamics of leadership and the need for development partners to consider supporting the emergence of developmental leaders in ways that were sensitive of the need to build locally legitimate institutions. It is a known fundamental principle of good development that it must be locally led and sensitive to the political and cultural context. However, in practice, this is very difficult to achieve as it involves profound shifts in power.

Feminist activist and scholar, Srilatha Batliwala, a keynote speaker at the conference took a deeper look at the power dynamics that existed in society and feminist and social justice organisations. She noted that sometimes, patriarchal, exclusionary, hierarchical societies produce patriarchal, exclusionary, hierarchical organisations. Transformative leadership requires leaders to confront and dismantle the deep structures of power that lurk within organisations and create a transparent, accessible and sustained mechanism of accountability that exposes and penalises bias and discrimination. Inequality exists where there are deep power structures that allow and enable them. Furthermore, she described transformative leadership to be about mobilising individual inner power and the power within others to become co-visionaries and co-creators of open systems. The challenge then for leaders, regardless of where they are placed, is to model inclusion if they want a more inclusive society. My peers shared her sentiments as well when reflecting on what leadership for inclusive development in our context would look like:

• It means leaders who can create an environment where people can be themselves and not what they want them to be.”
• Inclusive leadership means accepting diversity! And yes, that means accepting people of all walks of life, different cultures, special needs and.”
• Supporting the minority to have a voice and stand up for their human rights!
• Leadership that is representative and takes into consideration the different views of the team.
• Close to nothing ever works if there is no inclusion. If I do not feel included in a new project at work, then I will not be invested in its success as the project lead. That does not mean that I am not a team player; it just goes to show that the organisational culture does not encourage shared ownership. The same is true for our families, communities and even government.
• They can have the personality, but commitment, courage, open-mindedness, fairness and wisdom is needed. So many of our leaders are lacking all of these.
• Leadership that is selfless. No ego here.

Unfortunately, in PNG cultural norms that marginalise women, youth and other vulnerable groups are still prevalent, and informal governance systems influence how participation is defined as in “formal” institutions. Understanding and working within the context to effect change is a leadership challenge in and of itself. In short, the leadership that is needed to drive inclusive development requires as described by Hon Faime, the motivation and boldness to think and work politically to gain the legitimacy to lead and challenge structural processes that enable inequality. It also requires humility to recognise privilege, identify biases and ability to create a space where power is shared.

In conclusion, some of my main take always from the conference that I believe need to be considered by individuals and organisations working in the inclusive development space are:

• Both international and local development organisations and actors need to understand the contextual specificities of exclusion in every place they work. It is very important to be learning from, and being led by, the experiences of those who experience marginalisation and exclusion.
• A lot of research shows the adverse effects of aid funding on collective action and how they constrain locally-led development. Development partners need to play a more enabling role in supporting and facilitating space for local leaders and movements to emerge organically.

• According to Don Honig, tight controls and narrow focus on reaching pre-set targets can prevent frontline workers from using their knowledge, skills and creativity to solve problems as they happen on the ground, hence, impacting the performance of the aid projects. Important, to empower and allow front line staff to adapt and lead interventions on the ground. Monitoring and evaluation systems should also aim to measure smarter and differentiate between measurement for learning, and measurement for accountability. Refer to Don Honig, Navigation by Judgment Book
• More research needs to be done to understand perceptions of leadership and how they affect the social norms, attitude and behavior of people in response to local leadership. Further, despite an increase in support for women’s leadership across the Pacific, a focus should be on studying effective ways to support emerging women leaders.