My research on undue influence and older adults with Mild Cognitive Impairment has reshaped how I understand ethical leadership and global citizenship within the network of relationships surrounding vulnerable people. Through examining the legal treatment of elders with MCI in romantic and family contexts, I came to see that harm rarely occurs in isolation; instead, it develops within networks of dependence, care, persuasion, family tension, and institutional response. This insight has made me reflect that ethical leadership is not only about making correct decisions, but also about recognising hidden power imbalances and acting responsibly when formal rules fail to protect those at risk.
A key lesson from my research is that the law often adopts an autonomy-maximising approach once mental capacity is established, even where an older person’s judgment may be affected by fluctuating cognition and relational pressure. In theory, this respects dignity and independence, but in practice it can leave elders with MCI exposed to subtle manipulation that is difficult to prove through traditional undue influence doctrine. Reflecting on this, I believe ethical leadership requires more than passive respect for autonomy; it requires careful attention to context, vulnerability, and the unequal realities that shape a person’s choices. A leader must therefore ask not only whether a decision appears voluntary, but whether the surrounding network has made genuine autonomy possible.
My research also showed that vulnerability is often intensified by the structure of relationships around the individual. The cases I studied highlighted three recurring problems: personality changes linked to MCI, complex family structures that enable gatekeeping, and forms of emotional or practical dependency that can be exploited. These patterns revealed to me that injustice is frequently embedded in networks rather than in single dramatic acts. Ethical leadership in such settings means being alert to silence, exclusion, and dependency, especially where a person’s apparent consent may mask isolation or coercion.
This has also deepened my understanding of global citizenship. Global citizenship is often associated with international issues, but my research reminded me that it begins with a commitment to human dignity, fairness, and protection of the vulnerable in everyday life. Older adults with MCI may be legally recognised as capable, yet still face structural disadvantages when courts, families, and partners fail to account for the realities of cognitive decline and relational inequality. To act as a global citizen, I think one must be willing to challenge systems that overlook these vulnerable groups and advocate reforms that promote both autonomy and justice.
For this reason, I found my proposed MCI-relationship vulnerability presumption especially meaningful as a reflection of ethical leadership. It does not simply replace autonomy with paternalism, but instead seeks a fairer balance by recognising that relational inequality and cognitive vulnerability can distort apparently voluntary transactions. This approach reflects the kind of leadership I aspire to practise: principled, empathetic, and responsive to complexity. Ultimately, my research taught me that both ethical leadership and global citizenship depend on the courage to look closely at the network around vulnerable individuals and to reform it when it no longer protects dignity, justice, and meaningful choice.