Leadership to me today is still grounded in personal commitment, but it is no longer separable from how that commitment is carried out.
When I first applied to Laidlaw, I understood leadership mainly through active engagement and “showing up.” This was shaped by my experience working with an MP, and how much of his time was committed to fostering relationships and being present for the people he represented. I still believe that care matters. But over the past two years, I have realised that conviction without alignment and accountability does not lead to meaningful impact.
Through my research on migrant integration, and through navigating the expectations of the Laidlaw programme itself, I came to see that leadership is demonstrated as much in process as in principle. Acting in good faith is not enough if clarity is lacking, and responsibility must be visible and sustained.
My Leadership-in-Action project with the WONDER Foundation and the Baytree Centre pushed me away from rhetoric and toward structure. Working directly with migrant women made the stakes of research tangible. Integration is not advanced by passion alone. It depends on systems, on sustained support, and on thoughtful design. That experience reshaped how I think about leadership more broadly. Institutions function through standards, and those standards require care.
Over the course of the research project, I also learned that leadership is tested most clearly when things do not unfold as planned. An early miscommunication within my research group meant that I had to step away from the collaborative project I had originally conceived. I had invested deeply in the idea and completed much of the initial literature review. Starting again felt daunting.
What that moment required was steadiness. I had to communicate more carefully, reassess assumptions, and ensure that expectations were properly understood. Rather than disengage, I undertook an independent research project and committed to completing it to the same standard I would have expected within a group. Doing so required consistency and discipline more than confidence.
At the same time, my Leadership-in-Action work sharpened my ethical awareness. Interviewing migrant women demanded attentiveness and sensitivity. It reminded me that leadership is not simply about direction, but about responsibility toward others and toward the integrity of the work itself.
The programme exposed me to problems I would not otherwise have had to confront. Applying academic research skills in a live community setting reinforced a sense of obligation. Research stopped being abstract. It required accuracy and care because it concerned real experiences.
That shift has stayed with me. Evidence-based decision-making is not only methodological; it is ethical.
Academically, Laidlaw has given me confidence to pursue sustained inquiry beyond formal coursework. It strengthened my ability to design and deliver independent research with clarity. More importantly, it has deepened my sense of public purpose. Leadership now feels less like influence and more like stewardship. It is about using access responsibly and recognising that opportunity carries obligation.
If there is one lesson I take forward, it is that leadership is not defined by momentum alone. It is defined by alignment between values and conduct, especially when tested. That understanding will shape how I approach both academic work and the wider responsibilities that come with it.