I ask What truly is logic? Who decides reason? My quest has taken me to the physical, the metaphysical, the delusional, and back. 

- Dr. John Forbes Nash (A Beautiful Mind, 2001)

Though the full quote is delivered by Dr. Nash as a preamble to his discovery of the transcendent logic of love in his life and is set in a deeply personal context, its central question perfectly frames a key revelation in my experience as a Laidlaw Scholar. 

This might sound dramatic (and, to be fair, it is), but this question about logic, reason and by extension morality is something that I have come to ask myself a lot recently, largely because of my experiences throughout the programme. Through my experiences as a Laidlaw Scholar, from research to leadership, across borders both real and imagined, I’ve realised that what we call “rational” often depends on where we stand. I discovered that leadership isn’t about always being right; it’s about understanding that “right” itself can look very different depending on whose eyes you’re looking through. 

I associated leadership with clarity, concreteness and directness: having a vision, a strategy, a plan, the confidence to act and the ability to command or execute. All this can be a part of it,   but through both my research and this international experience, I’ve realised that good leadership often also looks like curiosity, openness, humility, diversity, asking uncomfortable questions, uncomfortable introspection and so much more. It’s not about being the smartest or loudest person in the room, it’s about creating a space where a diverse set of people with different versions of "right" or "smart" can contribute, discourse, and collaborate with meaning.

For those familiar with ethical theory/moral philosophy, it might sound like I’m converging towards making a stance for moral relativism: the idea, that what is “right” or “wrong” depends on cultural or contextual perspectives, that values, logic, and norms vary across borders, cultures and even individuals, rather than universal absolutes. While I wouldn’t say I’ve fully embraced that view, this journey has certainly taught me to approach leadership and ethics with a far greater openness to complexity and difference.

That said, this is a personal (somewhat tangential) opinion I think is worth mentioning here: unconditional or absolute belief in moral relativism (like any other moral view) can be a very slippery slope, it can quickly drift towards anarchy, where anything goes (the idea of "each to their own" can take over) and meaningful consensus or cooperation becomes nearly impossible. 

Going forward, I want to carry this idea of openness into how I grow as a leader. I want to be the kind of leader who doesn’t rush to impose answers, but instead creates space for better questions. Someone who can navigate complexity without oversimplifying it, and who can hold multiple truths at once without being paralysed by them.

I’ve learned that in a globalised, interconnected world, leadership isn’t about certainty — it’s about responsiveness. It’s about listening deeply, building bridges across difference, and leading with integrity even when the path isn’t clear. And while I still believe in principles, I now know that the best leaders are those who can balance those principles with compassion, context, and cultural humility. 

If this programme has taught me anything, it’s that the future won’t be led by those who claim to have all the answers, but by those who know how to listen, learn, and lead without them.

Finally, to conclude on an absolute tangent, a strongly felt note:

If you haven't watched A Beautiful Mind, please do.