Default ways of working - A Reflection

A few weeks ago some key decisions needed to be made in what I had decided was a tight deadline. I was looking at all that needed to be achieved over the next six months and started to get overwhelmed with all the details and all the things that hadn’t been confirmed. 

It’s important to point out that the leadership team of this project are the CEOs and Chairs of three Iwi who are working collectively to improve the wellbeing of their people and place. It’s not a stretch to say this project has the potential to create significant social and economic opportunity for whanau and the communities within this rohe.  It’s also not a stretch to say the leadership team are highly skilled and experienced, they hold the knowledge, experience and authority to determine how to proceed.

Despite this, I went into ‘default mode’.  I wrote the paper like I would have written any decision paper when I worked in local and central government roles.  It provided context and rationale concisely and provided a list of recommendations. The recommendations were key to making sure what needed to be achieved by the end of the year would be and everyone would know who was doing what.  The recommendations used typical ‘action orientated’ words - direct, delegate, authorise, agree, endorse.

I sent the paper to a colleague for peer review, and she very gracious sly pointed out the paper didn’t leave much room for leadership input, consideration of approaches or alternative thinking.  Her exact words were “it might need to be decolonised a bit”. This stopped me in my tracks.

I had defaulted to thinking and acting in a way that was comfortable and normal for me. As Beausoleil (2025), highlights, Anglo-European norms in language, protocols and practices  are embedded in mainstream decision making and are framed as common sense.   As pākehā, my thinking was structured within my ‘settler common sense’. I had justified this approach because of what I saw as non-negotiables. I went into developing the paper with the perspective that if we wanted to achieve what we had committed to, we needed to act with speed. That meant being direct, being explicit around the best way forward and leaving no room for uncertainty.

The problem wasn't that the paper was clear, direct or action focused. It was that I had treated one particular way of framing problems, exercising leadership and making decisions as neutral, as the sensible and right way to get things done.

A reciprocal relationship - double trusteeship

Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Te Tiriti) has been central to the relationship between Māori and the Crown since 1840. Article One of Te Tiriti provided kāwanatanga to the Crown, interpreted as providing governance. Article two guaranteed tino rangatiratanga, interpreted to mean that their trusteeship, authority, autonomy, self-determination and power is protected (Stanton Turei et al., 2024).

Kawharu (2024) highlights the reciprocal relationship between the Crown and Māori through Te Tiriti.  Key to this relationship is the concept of double trusteeship, where the permitting of kāwanatanga to the Crown means the Crown has an obligation to protect rangatiratanga. They explain this through a kāinga perspective in which Māori determine the shape and form of their future vision-making and in the process seek Crown engagement and support when needed.  The Crown role through enacting kāwanatanga is to act in service of rangatiratanga.

While the context of the Treaty relationship is largely seen as a political dialogue between Māori and the Crown (Stanton Turei et al., 2024),  Kawharu (2024) posits a Treaty relationship built on the concept of double trusteeship should recognise it is iwi kāinga who decide what is important to them and they will respond to it on their terms.  This moves the relationship beyond something that is political to one that is about giving effect to the roles within the relationship, where rangatiratanga is centred and kāwanatanga protects it. Kawharu (2024) explains key to this is understanding the conditions, challenges and opportunities for rangatiratanga to be exercised and the role that Crown functions can and should be scoped to support its activation.

In reflection I considered the idea of translating the concept of double trusteeship and the understanding of kawanatanga (including the responsibility of protecting rangatiratanga) to the role I play in supporting the three iwi to achieve their goals and vision.  Iwi leadership have the authority, knowledge and self-determination to consider and met the needs and aspirations of their people. My role as Tangata Tiriti is not to enable or protect their rangatiratanga, it is already theirs. Rather, my responsibility is to use my skills, knowledge and experience in service of rangatiratanga, working in ways that uphold it and strengthen the conditions through which it can be exercised.

What leadership ‘looks’ like

In practice this means not always working in ways that are comfortable or make sense for me. Why was it so easy for me to default back to that way of working? To go straight down the middle, say what needs to happen and why, and expect others to agree because at least someone had got the ball rolling?  Part of the answer is probably that this is what I have learnt leadership ‘needs’ to look like in times of pressure. Identify the problem. Work out what needs to happen. Be clear. Make a decision. Get moving. There is evidence for why this might be such an easy default. Baškarada et al. (2017) found that factors such as time pressure, performance expectations and risk can influence whether leaders adopt more transactional or transformational approaches. Transactional leadership, with its emphasis on structures, systems and procedures, is particularly associated with shorter-term time horizons. That sounds remarkably familiar. I had identified the problem, worked out what I thought needed to happen and written a clear and concise paper to get the decisions made. Then we could get moving, because in my mind we were running out of time.

My approach also reflects the environments where I spent much of my career.  Chapple (2019) highlighted the notion of managerialism (a generic set of managerial skills) being deeply embedded within the New Zealand public sector, shaping how management, accountability and performance are understood. In these environments, being able to cut through complexity, provide direction and get things moving is not just accepted; it is often valued as a sign of competence. When there is pressure and uncertainty, it becomes even easier to reach for. Regardless of why I defaulted to this approach, what interests me is how thoroughly I had normalised these accepted management and leadership practices. They felt like common sense, the right way to act in the situation. Yet management practices are not culturally or politically neutral. Cooke (2001) challenges us to recognise management's relationship with colonial histories and structures of power. That made me question what else was sitting unnoticed inside my ‘common sense’.

This brings to the fore the assumption sitting underneath this way of working: that because I can see a way forward, it is the way forward. I had already decided what the problem was, I had decided what was creating the risk, and I had decided what the solution was. None of those things were necessarily wrong. But I had arrived at them through my lens and understanding  and then built a decision-making process around them. Was I being useful in doing this, or was I inadvertently narrowing the space in which rangatiratanga could be exercised? Was I using my skills and experience in service of iwi aspirations, or had I moved from supporting the work to determining how the work should proceed?

In service of Rangatiratanga

While I was focused on what needed to happen over the next six months, the aspirations of the three iwi do not begin or end with this project. The relationships, collective leadership and capability being strengthened through this work need to endure long after the immediate deadlines have passed, and long after my role in it has ended. Getting something done quickly might therefore be the right response in one moment and entirely the wrong response in another. The challenge for my Tangata Tiriti practice is not simply learning to step back, just as it is not always stepping forward. It is learning to recognise what the moment requires of me, whose authority is being exercised, and what my actions are strengthening for the future.

This doesn't mean I stop bringing my experience, ideas or perspective. For  me,that that would be an easy out ,and an overly simplified interpretation of what it means to centre rangatiratanga. I have a responsibility to contribute what I know and to raise risks or possibilities that I can see. The difference is recognising that my contribution is just that - a contribution. It does not give me the authority to determine what happens next.

This is where the idea of working in service of rangatiratanga becomes practical rather than theoretical. It asks me to pay attention not only to what I contribute, but to how I contribute it; not only to whether the work gets done, but to who determines what the work should be; and not only to the immediate outcome, but to the conditions my way of working helps create.

And sometimes, apparently, it means telling me to decolonise my decision paper a bit.

Relationality

There is another part of my default that I have been thinking about. I treated the decisions  that needed to be made as something that could be separated from the relationships within which they were being made. There was work to do, decisions were needed, and my job was to construct the most logical pathway between the two.  But what if the relationships aren't simply the context within which the decision gets made? What if they are fundamental to how we know what a good decision is?

Wildcat and Voth (2023) argue that relationality is not simply about creating good relationships. It requires thinking about whether the relationships we create are capable of making judgements and decisions that further Indigenous self-determination. Relational decision-making isn't about everyone getting along. Nor does it mean avoiding difficult conversations, disagreement or decisive action. It asks something more fundamental:  who is in relationship, where authority sits, whose knowledge informs the judgement being made, and who ultimately gets to determine what should happen?

Grounded normative theory adds another dimension to this. This matters, because my default was to do almost the exact opposites. Rather than deciding in advance what the 'right' process or outcome should look like, judgement emerges through attention to the particular context, its relationships, histories, responsibilities and power (Cabrera & Ackerly, 2025).  As Wildcat and Voth (2023) suggest, relationality can be transformative precisely because it does not require us to predetermine the proper outcome before understanding the context in which we find ourselves.

That takes me back to my decision paper. I had predetermined the outcome, before the leadership team had even seen the paper. I had decided what needed to happen, what the priorities were and what decisions needed to be made. I had then written recommendations designed to get us there. I don't get to do that. Not because I don't have knowledge or experience worth contributing. Not because being Tangata Tiriti requires me to sit quietly at the edge of the table, and not because every decision needs to become an endless process of consultation. I don't get to decide the best approach because the authority to determine the direction sits with the iwi whose aspirations this work exists to serve.

What I bring

My responsibility is different. I can bring analysis. I can identify risks. I can offer options. I can ask difficult questions and challenge thinking. I can use my experience to help make sense of complexity and help translate collective direction into action. Sometimes I may need to say clearly that I think something isn't going to work and explain why. But I need to do those things from within the relationship, not from outside it looking in.

That means I don't get to determine the recommendations before the leadership has had the opportunity to determine the direction. I need to listen to the leadership, to the community and to those whose aspirations and futures sit at the centre of the work. The process through which we arrive at a decision matters because it shapes whose knowledge counts, whose judgement carries weight and whose authority is ultimately being exercised.

This is what working in service of rangatiratanga requires of me. Not simply maintaining good relationships with iwi while I do the work, but understanding relationality as part of the work itself. It means resisting my instinct to predetermine the answer and instead help create the conditions in which collective judgement can emerge from the relationships, knowledge and authority already present.

My default begins with asking what needs to happen, and how do we get it done? Yet I think my Tangata Tiriti praxis needs to begin somewhere else: Who holds the authority here, what do the relationships require of me, and how should I carry myself within them?

Reference List

Baškarada, S., Watson, J., & Cromarty, J. (2017). Balancing transactional and transformational leadership. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 25(3), 506–515.

Beausoleil, E. (2025). Decolonizing Deliberation: Experiments from Aotearoa New Zealand. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 58(1), 147–170. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423924000635

Cabrera, L., & Ackerly, B. A. (2025). Grounded normative theory and intellectual humility. European Journal of Political Theory, 1474.

Chapple, S. (2019). From Mandarin to Valet Public Service: State sector reform and problems of managerialism in the New Zealand public service. Policy Quarterly, 15(4).

Cooke, B. (2001). FROM COLONIAL ADMINISTRATION TO DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT.

Hayward, J., Stanton Turei, M., Wheen, N. (2024) Introduction: Tiriti o Waitangi Relationships. In Stanton Turei, M., Wheen, N., & Hayward J. (Eds.), Te Tiriti o Waitangi Relationships (pp.1-10). Bridget Williams Books.

Kawaharu, M. (2024) Beyond Treaty Principles: The Double Trusteeship of te Tiriti o Waitangi. In Stanton Turei, M., Wheen, N., & Hayward J. (Eds.), Te Tiriti o Waitangi Relationships (pp.159-174). Bridget Williams Books.

Wildcat, M., & Voth, D. (2023). Indigenous relationality: Definitions and methods. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 19(2), 475–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/11771801231168380