Have you ever wondered why some people always think first about how situations benefit them before considering how others may be affected? Why do some people only participate when they are rewarded, and otherwise have no incentive to take part? Meanwhile, others seem drawn to activities that benefit the collective, even at personal cost.
This reflects the age-old debate about whether one is born a leader or if leadership can be learned, because the essence of leadership is stewardship. Stewardship requires inherent qualities such as empathy, intelligence, integrity, humility, and emotional intelligence, among others. These are often qualities one is born with or that become observable from a very young age.
For instance, selfishness is usually a character trait rather than a learned behaviour. Selfish people — those concerned primarily with their own gains or pleasure — do rise to leadership positions, often motivated by self-interest and directing decisions toward selfish ends. Whether the mere occupation of such positions makes them leaders is another debate.
It is easy to confuse a position of leadership or authority with true leadership. The critical purpose of leadership is to give direction and make decisions that drive progress — something easily achieved when one holds authority. These decisions often have lasting consequences for those being led. Hence, leadership is a burden best carried by those with broad shoulders; otherwise, it can expose and crush both the leader and the led.
Governance tools assist those in leadership positions by providing standardised decision-making processes and expectations to ease the leadership burden and make it accessible even to those for whom stewardship may not come naturally. Governance frameworks move leadership from talent to enforceable legal expectations. Since leadership is about making decisions, the fundamental question becomes: in whose interest is this decision being made? Governance principles dictate that decisions must, as a starting point, be made in the interest of the entity or people being governed.
In 1994, South Africa found itself at a new starting line: corporate South Africa now operated in a democracy and had to serve all citizens. This required a mindset shift. The King Committee, chaired by Mervyn King, provided leadership by recommending a set of guidelines and principles to be observed by corporate leaders — boards and executives — in the quest to build an inclusive corporate consciousness.
The King Codes began as a basic guide for financial accountability to protect shareholder interests. They evolved to include stakeholder sustainability, driving responsible business practices that consider benefits to shareholders, customers, communities, and the environment. These interventions were designed to move companies from self-interest to collective interest. Owing to environmental changes and emerging trends, the codes have evolved over the years.
For instance, King Code V, launched on 31 October 2025, responds to governance challenges related to digital technology, artificial intelligence, and ESG considerations. These developments demand that companies and organisations be equipped to lead for the collective good in these ever-changing environments.
These governance principles recognise that leaders are human beings — and human beings inherently have personal interests. Such interests can be beneficial to the collective when the leader is empathetic, socially aware, and genuinely motivated to solve societal problems.
However, when personal interests become self-interests — financial or otherwise — governance dictates that the leader must declare and recuse themselves from related decisions. It becomes problematic when personal interests are purely self-serving because self-interest invariably leads to destruction — for both the individual and society.
These governance principles are not limited to corporate boards but extend to political systems. This can be starkly seen in the recently concluded elections in Tanzania, where governance failed and self-interest prevailed.
President Samia Suluhu Hassan was declared the winner with 98% of the vote and an 87% voter turnout. Yet journalists and observers reported that polling stations were largely empty, and key opposition parties (CHADEMA and ACT-Wazalendo) were prevented from participating. CHADEMA deputy chairperson John Heche was arrested for treason a week before the elections.
This situation led to protests and violent unrest that have claimed more than 800 Tanzanian lives to date. This means that President Hassan has emerged victorious at the expense of her people. The electoral governance rules stipulate that results issued by the Independent National Electoral Commission cannot be challenged. Therefore, she has “won,” but democracy has lost — a textbook case of selfish leadership. She holds power, yet her legitimacy is questioned, and Tanzania has lost its long-held reputation as a stable and peaceful nation in the region. Thus, both she and her country have lost — the destructive outcome of selfish leadership. It destroys both the leader and the led.
Check yourself: if you must manipulate a rule or principle for your decision to pass, you are conflicted. You are likely advancing a personal interest, not governance, and it won’tend well for you.
Dr Sibongile Vilakazi is an academic and organizational developer whose work focuses on building ethical, human-centered systems in business and institutions.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.