Paradigm warriors: Advancing a radical ecosystems view of collective leadership from an Indigenous Māori perspective

Introduction

The purpose of this article is to contribute an ecosystemic conceptualization of collective leadership. This ecosystems view is a revolutionary departure from previous scholarship, not just on leadership but also collective leadership, because of the extraordinary set of relationships it encompasses, including those across generations and across living and non-living entities. In developing this contribution, we pay attention to establishing a connection between Māori leadership practices and resonant sub-streams of the collective leadership literature. For example, collective leadership (Friedrich et al., 2016) and its trajectories—including relational (Cunliffe and Eriksen, 2011; Uhl-Bien, 2006; Uhl-Bien and Ospina, 2012), pluralistic (Foley and O’Connor, 2013; White et al., 2016), and distributed (Gronn, 2002; Spillane, 2005, 2012)—is frequently portrayed by leadership scholars as a paradigm shift away from hierarchical, vertical, and individualized leadership styles to collective, horizontal forms (Chrobot-Mason et al., 2016: 298; Cullen-Lester and Yammarino, 2016: 173; Friedrich et al., 2016: 312; Uhl-Bien, 2006). Such claims of a new or lost paradigm, while welcome, tend to overlook other culturally grounded precepts of leadership (Ospina and Foldy, 2009). From an Indigenous perspective, for which a body of academic published works exists, collective leadership as a phenomenon is not new or emerging, but has a deep history and contemporary forms continue to flourish in Indigenous communities.

In order to advance our perspective of collective leadership, we engage three core strands of knowledge: social-ecological systems (SESs) theory; Indigenous ecological knowledge (IEK); and a Māori worldview. These bodies of literature underscore our radical ecosystems view of collective leadership. From a western perspective, organizations have been arbitrarily cast as separate to the Earth. The view we posit is that organizations are living forms comprising a constellation of relationships that extend into communities and ecologies, and through time and space.

According to SESs theory, social-ecological systems are a coherent system of biophysical and social factors that interact in a sustained manner (Berkes, 2012; Berkes et al., 2008; Folke, 2006; Rotarangi and Stephenson, 2014). They are non-linear, perpetually dynamic, and include spatial and temporal scales, and natural, socio-economic, and cultural resources (Folke, 2006). These complex systems continuously adapt and are resilient. Scholars use SESs theory to stress that the delineation between social and ecological systems is imagined and arbitrary (Berkes et al., 2008). SESs is well aligned with a more recent renaissance in collective leadership that highlights collective behavior resulting from interdependent entities interacting in non-linear and dynamic networks of relationships (Cullen-Lester and Yammarino, 2016).

To foster further distinction, the second strand of knowledge is Indigenous ecological knowledge (IEK). IEK draws from LaDuke’s (1999) definition as the culturally and spiritually based ways in which Indigenous peoples relate to their ecology. IEK views Indigenous knowledge as both a repository of wisdom, and a dynamic process of new knowledge creation (Anderson et al., 2006; Battiste, 2000; Cajete, 2000; Durie, 1998; Nelson and Shilling, 2018; Rotarangi and Russell, 2009; Spiller et al., 2011a; Whyte and Cuomo, 2016). In terms of leadership, for many of the world’s Indigenous peoples, collective leadership is a dynamic philosophy founded upon bedrock principles designed to create cultures of identity and belonging, particularly salient in Indigenous communities. These ancient living systems of leadership are a pertinent source of learning for scholars and practitioners interested in collective leadership. Indigenous leadership is grounded in an animated world of affection between humans and cosmos, where we are evolving together—entwined in sacred kinship. Leaders, including those at the helm of organizations, are kaitiaki, active stewards, for the wellbeing of others in social-ecologies. The radical implication for collective leadership is for all leaders, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to take up the role of actively being stewards and caretakers of communities and ecologies in service of the wellbeing of others, including the environment. It involves mutual exchange and collective will and is sustained from one generation of leadership to the next.

The third and most defining facet of developing this ecosystemic view of collective leadership is harvested from within a culturally derived Māori worldview, mātauranga Māori, in which ancient wisdom provides the bedrock for guiding collective Māori leadership. This wisdom comes forth through proverbs, stories, parables, song, dance, and carvings that speak to the importance of relationships, reciprocity, and respect. It is through the collective will of others that leaders earn respect, not through self-proclamation and self-assertion (Henry and Wolfgramm, 2016; Katene, 2010; Mahuika, 1975; Marsden, 2003; Spiller et al., 2015). Specifically, we cohere collective Māori leadership (CML) set within an ecosystemic worldview that conceives of reality as a complex ‘Woven Universe’ (Marsden, 2003), practiced, tested, and refined through intergenerational praxis between an abiding knowledge system and lived realities.

Hence, this article is important for extending SESs theory by applying it to the field of collective leadership, for positioning IEK and mātauranga Māori knowledge in leadership studies, and for making a distinctive contribution to collective leadership theorizing. ¹

With specificity to this special issue, we offer two distinctive contributions that advance the field of collective leadership. Our first meets the call in this special issue for innovative research methodologies. Our innovative research methodology is informed by the ancient practice of wānanga (glossed here as ‘to collectively deliberate deeply with intention’). Situated within the burgeoning field of kaupapa Māori research, which includes agentic conscientization, praxis, and transformation (Smith, 1999/2012), it is the most appropriate research position for this article, given the researchers’ insider knowledge and experience of Māori practices. In the field of collective leadership, this has required challenging and reshaping methodologies in order to create and amplify distinctive Indigenous contributions.

The wānanga process is both a methodology and a method which values attunement into phenomena, and as such, challenges the orthodoxies of reductionist, quantitative research. Wānanga traverses time and space and involves both process and a quality of consciousness to bring forth an integrated collective intelligence (Royal, 2011). Through wānanga—especially as we conceive of it in this inquiry into collective leadership—the distinction between researchers as separate from the field of their focus is dissolved, as it is no longer a study ‘about’ or ‘upon’, but from ‘within’. Thus, in the context of collective leadership we contemplate three watershed leadership moments that encapsulate nuanced notes of collective leadership.

Our wānanga process gives rise to the second main contribution of this work: an ecosystemic view of collective leadership. An ecosystemic view of leadership comprises a network of dynamic relationships between individuals and collectives. Māori leadership is exercised in many different types of spaces—such as tribal, corporate entities, social ventures, and community organizations—and their experiences have much value to offer the theory and practice of collective leadership.

We argue that in cultures where ecologies co-exist in dynamic relational systems, SESs and IEK, alongside ontologically derived understandings of leadership, will connect theory with methodology, thus contributing a robust and distinctive view of collective leadership. In order to illustrate this ecosystemic view of collective leadership, we engage the immense New Zealand kauri tree as a living metaphor.

Through the watershed ‘moments’ that capture Māori leadership in practice, we show that this dynamic set of relationships is an ecosystem held together in three key ways. The first is ‘activating a knowledge code’ that is transmitted from one network to the next through acts such as ritual, ceremony, proverbs, art, and performance. The second is ‘cultivating ties of affection’ which bind people to each other, place, and ecologies. The third is ‘working the tensions’, whereby tension, although it can be uncomfortable, is a necessary part of ensuring that leadership is honoring the knowledge code. In SESs theory, tensions are critical to developing resilience and adaptability, hence tension is requisite for robust collective leadership. These three aspects offer value for scholarly and practitioner inquiry into collective leadership, including the importance of multi-dimensional relationships, taking an intergenerational view, and working with the realities of tensions that ply the field.

This article begins with a review of collective leadership literature. Although by no means exhaustive, it highlights often decontextualized approaches to theory development in collective leadership. It also affirms that there is a lack of deeper spatial and temporal perspectives in the literature. This is followed with a discussion of our wānanga methodology and method. We present the findings of the wānanga and discuss these in the context of collective leadership and contributions to the wider field, including the presentation of the CML ecosystemic framework. This distinctive framework is designed to facilitate better understanding of collective leadership in service of the wellbeing of an interconnected, interdependent whole. The conclusion sets out the limitations of this work and areas for future research. A glossary of key Māori terms, with phonetics, can be found at Appendix 1.

Literature review: A renaissance in collective leadership

Collective leadership challenges our perceptions of leadership as an inherently individual attribute by arguing for the intrinsic value of followers as equally responsible for decision making, empowerment, and performance (Marion et al., 2016; Paunova, 2015; Sparrowe et al., 2001; White et al., 2016; Yang, 2006).

Collective leadership, the idea that leadership does not just comprise individual attributes and skillsets, was initially proposed by leadership scholars Katz and Kahn (1978) and Gibb (1954), who emphasized the concepts of ‘shared’ and ‘distributed’ leadership among groups and teams. In contrast to the great man theory of leadership, collective leadership asserts that leadership is a function of network dynamics such that individuals take on the mantles of leadership as well as followership over time (Chrobot-Mason et al., 2016; Gibb, 1954; Katz and Kahn, 1978; O’Shea, 2012; Quick, 2017; Serban and Roberts, 2016).

Friedrich et al. (2016) argue there are three dimensions crucial for the collective leadership process: communication; network development; and leader–team exchange. Within the communication dimension, behaviors such as information sharing, feedback exchange, establishing communication norms, and empowering voice have been demonstrated as crucial for collective leadership. Scholars such as Mayfield and Mayfield (2007) have emphasized the impact of leader communication styles on team performance and intention to stay. They found that leaders’ use of motivating language has a strong impact on workers’ intention to stay, such that a 10% increase of motivating language led to at least a 5% increase of intention to stay. Overall, these cases support the critical centrality of communication within collective leadership, particularly in how leaders and followers engage in two-way communication (Kramer and Crespy, 2011), how communication affects distribution of roles and tasks (Zhu et al., 2018), and how communication patterns develop through leader and members’ self- and other-knowledge (Carson et al., 2007).

Network development, on the other hand, can be understood as the interaction between actors which culminates in either the development of weak or strong ties dependent on four network principles: (1) relationship between actors; (2) embeddedness; (3) social capital; and (4) structural patterning (Balkundi and Kilduff, 2006; Cullen et al., 2012; Cullen-Lester and Yammarino, 2016).

At its core, collective leadership asserts the importance of trust within relationships as necessary in tackling wicked problems, particularly among teams, organizations, and institutions (Contractor et al., 2012; Cullen-Lester and Yammarino, 2016; Denis et al., 2001; McHugh et al., 2016; Mumford et al., 2012; Will, 2016). Trust, in this case, can be conceptualized as a dynamic process and can also be understood as both the cause and outcome of leaders’ and followers’ behaviors (Friedrich et al., 2016; Katz and Kahn, 1978; Pearce et al., 2014). This is particularly salient within leader–follower interactions through which leaders delegate roles and tasks to the follower, which the follower may either accept or reject (Hiller et al., 2006; Zhu et al., 2018).

In summary, in the field of collective leadership, scholars have drawn on social identity theory, network theory, and agency theory to extend the field (Venus et al., 2012). Resultant theories of shared, networked, distributed leadership resonate with the needs of practice as many organizations attempt to foster greater leadership capacity in order to get things done in organizations. In addition, through increasing refinements over the last decade, collective leadership continues to be associated with distributed, shared, relational, collaborative, participative, networked, emergent, dispersed, and democratic leadership (Bolden et al., 2011). The above review highlights that this renaissance of interest in collective leadership is timely and indeed has given rise to the need to focus more acutely on the importance of collective leadership for effecting positive pro-social and pro-environmental action (Ansari et al., 2013; Wolfgramm et al., 2015).

Yet, in spite of much progress, we argue the framing of a collective leadership ecosystem is missing a deeper spatial and temporal dimension and connection to a cultural habitus. This is particularly important because, as noted in the introduction, social-ecological systems are a system of biophysical and social factors that interact in a coherent and sustained way, are perpetually dynamic, and include spatial and temporal scales and natural, socio-economic, and cultural resources (Berkes, 2012; Berkes et al., 2008; Folke, 2006; Rotarangi and Stephenson, 2014). Hence, we turn to our third strand of knowledge, a Māori worldview, to inform an ontologically derived CML ecosystemic framework that taps into facets of being, existence, identity, essence, and possibility. The paradigm-challenging nature of our contribution to the field is amplified further in the following section.

Māori collective leadership: A multi-dimensional paradigm

A Māori worldview is underpinned by whakapapa, a sophisticated genealogical ordering of the world. Whakapapa is explained as the layering and ordering of relationships and events across time and space (Williams, 1975: 259). As a heuristic device, whakapapa articulates relationships of self with others, including ancestors, mountains, rivers, and sacred guardians. Whakapapa takes humans back to the point of singularity in Io-matua-kore (described as the supreme being; personification of light and the world of the living). Io as the point of origin is the coalescence of connectedness that recognizes that the ontological and epistemological unification with the natural world is what unites Māori (Henry and Wolfgramm, 2016; Spiller et al., 2011b).

In a whakapapa ordering of the world, all aspects of creation have a genealogy. Thus, not only humans but insects, birds, plants, rocks—every single aspect of creation belongs to a domain. For example, creatures of the oceans come under the domain of Tangaroa, the god of the ocean. These personifications offer a sophisticated view of an animated interconnected universe. The Māori system of whakapapa gives a powerful positioning for this article, reflected in its title of Paradigm warriors, which we unpack in the next section.

Methodology

We meet the call in this special issue by contributing an innovative research methodology to collective leadership informed by the ancient practice of wānanga (glossed here as ‘to collectively deliberate deeply with intention’). Situated within the burgeoning field of Kaupapa Māori research, with its focus on conscientization, praxis, and transformation (Henry and Pene, 2001; Pihama et al., 2002; Smith, 1999/2012), wānanga brings together ancestral wisdom (the people we interview are not just leaders, they are the living embodiment of whakapapa and representatives of a collective), our collective body of work and data, and our own experiences, including transmissions we have each received from Māori mentors and elders. From this standpoint, the notion of ‘data’ is a deeply limiting construct, and we prefer the term mātauranga Māori, an ontologically derived form of living and dynamic Indigenous knowledge. Kaupapa Māori research is acknowledged as being an Indigenous paradigm incorporating pluralistic epistemologies and spearheaded by Smith (1999/2012). Her work has influenced a wide range of Indigenous methodologies including Indigenous Standpoint Theory (Foley, 2003) and Talanoa Tongan research methodology (Māhina, 2010; Vaioleti, 2006). This growing body of scholarship seeks to illuminate Indigenous knowledge creation derived from Indigenous worldviews that have at their heart a belief in a sacred ecology and reverence for ancestral wisdom (see Fitzgibbons and Humphries, 2011).

Māori have a highly refined system for surfacing knowledge through the ancient process of wānanga, which is an integrated system of paradigm, methodology, and method. For centuries, wānanga have been essential to advancing mātauranga Māori. Kia Eke Panuku (n.d.) explain that wānanga involves creating knowledge within complex sensory environments and involves open and continuous learning that enhances the interaction between the spiritual, social, and physical.

Wānanga reinforces a view that there is nothing fixed or static about learning and gaining of knowledge. In a Māori worldview it is a dynamic process and involves creating a space where participants gather with intention to enter a state of deep knowing and to allow emergent insight to unfold. The holistic orientation of time—that is, not just being in the here and now—points to the notion of the perpetual present (Wolfgramm, 2007). In other words, there is no beginning and end to wānanga as a process: it is continual, dynamic, and interactive.

Ultimately, says Royal (2011), the purpose of the wānanga process is to enable the creative mind to come into being. He explains that a ‘tangata whai mahara’ is somebody who is alert, awake, and requires a particular type of intellectual dynamism. A tohunga guides the process, and is described as someone gifted in their ability, and steeped within their authority and mastery, who can bring forth new dimensions of creative insight for the benefit of communities. ‘Wānanga creativity’, says Royal (2011: 44), ‘is about activating and accessing the full powers and abilities of human consciousness and applying this for positive purposes’. Wānanga is a profoundly spiritual Māori approach protected under the skillful guidance of wisdom keepers steeped in tikanga (cultural protocols) and other important cultural processes.

While keenly aligned with phenomenology (Bortoft, 1996) and social constructionism that emphasizes a process orientation (Thompson, 2011) wānanga differentiates itself in important ways. The wānanga process contributes to collective leadership and organizational research by offering an ecosystemic integration of theory, methodology, method and analysis and does not treat these as discrete, divided and sequential activities. The implications for all researchers, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, are manifold. Research is seen as a process of dwelling holistically in deep contemplation with intention. Researchers are not separate to the field of inquiry, observing and staying at a distance such as an ethnographer might, the researcher is a vessel of knowledge creation through which insight flows. A reflexive autoethnographic experience (Cunliffe, 2003; Ellis and Bochner, 2000) resonates with wānanga, where participants bring themselves to the field, and privilege an insider’s view. Meyer (1998) has explored ike pāpālua, or ‘second sight’, which she says illuminates the deeper dimensions of knowledge—which accords with wānanga. Bergson (in Tsoukas and Chia, 2002: 571) captures this ethos when he says ‘dive back into the flux itself . . . turn your face toward sensation; bring yourself in touch with reality through intuition; get to know it from within’.

Tsoukas and Chia (2002: 571) argue perception is vital, and if we hope to yield insight and see what is salient, we need to cultivate awareness and pay close attention to the more nuanced, micro shades of change and process. For De Wit and Meyer (2005: 13), researchers need to move beyond taking ‘one cut of a multi-faceted reality’, and they similarly call for skillful tapping into intuition and creativity. They argue that ‘imagination and judgment are more important than analysis and logic’ (2005: 7). For organizational and leadership researchers the wānanga way has the potential to open new fields of insight that advance a holistic view connecting across generations and across living and non-living entities. Importantly, researchers of collective leadership are themselves a team working as a collective living ecosystem with relationships that extend in many directions, through time and space. Researchers too are called to be paradigm warriors and challenge the status quo if it is not serving the wellbeing of people and planet.

Pathways that resonate with this kind of methodological journey include Scharmer’s (2009) Theory U: Learning from the Future as It Emerges, which is an invitation for researchers to enter the deeper folds of reality through presencing, sensing, and awareness that calls us to ‘connect and operate from source’ with an open heart, mind and will (2009: 1). Another example is Goethe’s (Bortoft, 1996) way of dwelling in phenomena, which he describes as extra sensorial perception, through attuning the senses, developing powers of perception and trusting intuitive consciousness. These approaches beckon researchers from all walks of life to undertake the journey toward ‘theoria’ an ancient Greek word meaning ‘seeing’ that transcends rational thought and logic alone.

Findings

The wānanga process illuminated three revelatory watershed moments that bring into sharp relief the potency of collective Māori leadership in action. Focusing on watershed moments is like a laser beam of insight that cuts through a situation to reveal what is most crucial. In this section we provide an account of each of these watershed moments before setting out the results of our analysis, which captures an ecosystemic view of CML. These watershed moments challenge conventional collective leadership theorizing in a number of ways that are picked up in the discussion. The moments point to the deeper temporal and spatial dimensions of collective leadership that activate multi-generational wisdom and connectivity across human relationships with each other as well as to lands, mountains, oceans, rivers, and animals. In this view a song is not just an individual singing and others joining in, nor is a proverb a pithy cultural cliche or quote; these are ancient cultural and spiritual threads that weave people together and provide guidance on how to respond and act as a collective of rangatira (leadership). In this worldview individuals do not exist separately from the collective, and the collective is part of movement through time, connecting the past to the present, and the present to the future.

Discussion: CML ecosystemic framework

Our findings through the wānanga process give rise to the second main contribution of this work: an ecosystemic view of CML that comprises three important aspects: activating the knowledge code; cultivating ties of affection; and working the tensions. We illustrate this ecosystemic view through the kauri tree in Figure 1, which offers both a theoretical framework and a practical basis to guide leadership. The kauri is kin to humans—both dwell in the domain of Tāne, the god of forests. Kauri are taonga, a precious species that embodies a spiritual link to the ancestors. The New Zealand kauri (Agathis australis) have existed for around 20 million years and belong to the Araucariaceae family of conifers. The largest New Zealand kauri alive today is Tāne Mahuta, who is estimated to be between 1200 and 2000 years old.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Collective Māori Leadership Ecosystem framework.

In Figure 1, the collective at the roots refers to the whole organization (the tribe, community, business, organization). Depicting the collective as roots references the belief that we are safe in our mother Earth, and is in distinct contrast to the evolution of western-styled models. For example, the first western organizational chart depicted the roots of the tree as the president and the board of directors (Rosenthal, 2013). In our CML ecosystemic view, the trunk of the tree represents the groups within the collective (such as the Board, sub-committees, and families), and the leaves of the tree represent individuals.

Conclusion

An ecosystem view of collective leadership is integral both theoretically and methodologically, not just for the collective Māori leadership but for the field as an operating principle of collective leadership. This article argues that collective leadership, rather than being a new and emerging paradigm, has been a way of life for millennia. We have amplified a radical paradigm position designed to extend the field of collective leadership studies through the development of an ecosystemic view of collective leadership. Our CML ecosystemic framework is predicated on the notion of developing a kinship culture where leadership is seen as movement through time, with each generation of leaders seeking to grow and enhance the collective toward intergenerational, interdependent flourishing. True collective leadership seeks to be enduring as a living system that is open to being tested and embracing of affective ties. This leadership grows paradigm warriors who do not settle for an existing reality if it does not serve the wellbeing of the people and the planet.

We have offered two distinct contributions in this article. First, in terms of methodology, we incorporate an innovative approach informed by the ancient practice of wānanga, thus challenging the orthodoxies of secular, reductionist research. Wānanga is to be an aware presence that allows knowledge to emerge and a collective intelligence to surface where humans are a living embodiment of whakapapa (genealogical layering). Whakapapa takes humans back to the point of singularity in Io, which recognizes our unification with the natural world. Thus, wānanga is to also hold nature as kin.

The second contribution is the CML ecosystemic framework composed of an interconnected network of entities held together by activating a knowledge code, cultivating ties of affection, and working the tensions. These aspects show how collective leadership can be sustained from one generation to the next. Our work points to the need for collectively oriented leadership to lean into the tensions and conflicts, putting it into the sharp relief of lived reality.

With regard to limitations: this article is situated within a particular cultural worldview and place which may be viewed as a limitation. Allied to this, researchers and practitioners may fear charges of cultural co-option and transgression. Furthermore, given we draw on Indigenous Māori knowledge and practices some people may not feel they have access to the richness of heritage that Indigenous peoples have. Our encouragement is for all researchers to reclaim sacred kinship with Earth, and a sense of immanence, and turn to the bedrock of wisdom that is within their cultural edifice. To access this bedrock may require the patient determination of an archaeologist picking through the sediments of time to piece together one’s own ancient knowledge code such as can be found in proverbs, poetry, chants, and artefacts.

Our methodology may be argued as a limitation by those who subscribe to an objective science and its qualitative proxies. Our approach of worldview-methodology-method-data-analysis as one movement, and collapsing of time and space, may be unsettling to some. They may wonder where is the science in that, the objectivity, the discipline? How can this be generalizable? A paradox of generalizability lies in our work: the bedrock of wisdom on how to live well in this world is probably more inherently general to humanity than a large-scale quant study. Relations of respect and reciprocity have been the enduring travel companions of humans to guide how we interact with each other and nature. Organizations too are a constellation of such relationships, a microcosm, and cannot be quarantined off as if they do not belong to the world. Yet, as ‘methodological experts’ many researchers are wedded to their technique. Driscoll and Wiebe (2007: 334), drawing upon Jacques Ellul, argue technique creates ‘a closed fraternity of its practitioners’, who ‘typically have their own discourse and are obsessed with facts and results’. When technique becomes hegemonic, we can get trapped in narrow corridors of rationality, wherein human relations too can get straight-jacketed into technique and ultimately be dehumanizing.

For future research we believe there is a need to dig deeper into the shadowy forces that impinge upon collective leadership. Tāne Mahuta, the great kauri of New Zealand, is under threat of kauri dieback disease. A pathogen discovered in 2009 senses a kauri tree’s roots, killing most of the kauri it infects. Research that studies the forces that attack the roots of the collective, the knowledge code, would be a worthy area of study. For example, pushing a particular, self-interested agenda is a common, albeit unhealthy, ‘shadow’ form of collective leadership that warrants further examination. Perhaps much that purports to be collective leadership is actually leadership by a CEO who decides to adopt collective styles in particular ways for a particular agenda, which, guised as collective, is actually hierarchical and CEO-centric. We believe our theoretical and methodological contributions open up new vistas of holistic research in leadership and organizations. Future research could also explore the perceived sanctity of the sovereign individual apropos leadership. Even the idea of the sovereign individual may be illusory: ‘the sovereign individual is the modern individual who only stands apart from the herd insofar as the herd instinct has been perfectly internalized’ (Rukgaber, 2012: 213). To truly claim ‘collective leadership’ as a living reality requires an understanding that humans are forged in relationship, wherein each person participates in, and contributes to, a higher calling to create multi-dimensional wellbeing.

We finish with a proverb from the region of one our researchers: ‘Te Wairoa hōpūpū, hōnengenenge, matangirau’ explained by Ngāti Kahungunu tribal leader Ngahiwi Tomoana (2015: paras 2–4):

This is a classic Kahungunu statement referring to the Wairoa River and the lands which are full of whirlpools, snags and boggy holes. But as the waters come closer to the sea they become calm and flow in a gentle direction to the ocean. This is a metaphor for the nature of the people of Te Wairoa. They are robust and interrogate every issue till the cows come home. They contest every matter with much debate but they normally agree on important matters, hence the term ‘Tātau’, ‘We are one.’