Ethical and Resilient
Leadership
- 1 November 2025
An inspiring and thought-provoking event celebrating women who are redefining leadership in today’s complex world.
The event begins with a fireside chat featuring Mrs. Neo Dongwana, a highly respected Independent Non-Executive Director currently serving on the boards of Nedbank Group Limited, Aspen Pharmacare Holdings Limited, and Vukile Property Fund Limited. She is also the former Chairperson of Barloworld Limited and previously served as an Independent Non-Executive Director at Mpact Limited. In conversation with Delia Ndlovu, Mrs. Dongwana delves into what it means to lead with courage and steadiness amid volatility, drawing on her wealth of experience in governance and business leadership to inspire women at every stage of their leadership journey.
The event continues with an Ethics Masterclass led by Prof. Deon Rossouw CD (SA), Chairperson of the International Banknote Ethics Initiative. This session unpacks the moral foundations of governance and provide practical insights into how ethical principles sustain trust, credibility, and resilience in decision-making.
Fireside chat with Neo Dongwana
The Synthesis of Resilience, Ethics, and Humanity
The insights shared by Neo Dongwana weave together into a powerful and cohesive philosophy of modern leadership. It is a philosophy defined by an integration of resilience forged by being “in the trenches,” an unwavering ethical compass that guides the necessary “tap dance” of stakeholder management, and a deep sense of humanity that places family and health at its core. It is the story of a leader who knows how to have a “pity party” before standing up to “brush myself off” with even greater resolve. This was more than just a fireside chat; it was a master class in resilience.
Brief
Short Explainer Video
Podcast-Style Summary
Full Recording
Key Questions Answered by Neo
Establishing a clear and comprehensive definition of resilience is a strategic imperative for any leader. A shared understanding of this concept is crucial for building robust individuals and organizations capable of navigating a turbulent world. Neo Dongwana offered a dual-sided definition that addresses both the personal and organizational dimensions of this critical capability.
At the individual level, resilience transcends simply recovering from adversity. It is an active and deliberate process of growth and self-direction. The key components include:
- The foundation is bouncing back from setbacks.
- It requires the discipline of rising with intention.
- It is guided by the principle of leading with empathy.
- It culminates in the power of carefully crafting your own future.
For an organization, resilience is a two-pronged leadership capability that requires balancing immediate pressures with future-focused strategy. This involves the ability to simultaneously manage acute crises, navigating a “turbulent” world marked by “geopolitical issues” and “trade wars”, while maintaining a long-term lens to scan the environment for emerging opportunities and threats.
This definition provides a powerful framework, moving beyond mere survival to a more intentional and strategic approach to overcoming challenges. The real test of this philosophy, however, lies in the experiences that forge it.
Profound resilience is often not a learned theory but a trait forged in the crucible of challenging early-life circumstances. This section explores the formative experiences that shaped Neo Dongwana’s character and leadership philosophy, embedding in her a unique combination of discernment and a commitment to service.
- Growing up in a political home in Maseru, Ms. Dongwana described living a “double life” that demanded an extraordinary level of maturity. By day, she was a normal, high-achieving student. At home, however, she navigated a world of constant threat from the apartheid government, living in a house containing “hand grenades,” “pistols,” and “AK-47s.” This environment forced her to learn “discernment” from an early age, as she could not have friends visit or risk revealing her family’s reality. This early-life experience of managing immense pressure and secrecy became a core component of her resilience.
- The influence of her father, Chris Hani, was central to her development as a leader. While outside perception might frame her as coming from “political royalty,” her own experience was as the “child of a refugee.”
She distilled the key characteristics of her father’s servant leadership, evidenced by his actions, not his title:
- Leading from the Trenches: He was known for being “in the trenches” with MK soldiers, not “hovering somewhere there sitting in some office.” This hands-on approach demonstrated a commitment to sharing the struggles of his people.
- Accessibility and Counsel: There was a constant “queue of people at home” seeking his advice on everything from marital issues to educational pursuits, reflecting his role as a trusted community counselor.
- 3. Championing Education: He consistently encouraged younger ANC members to “go to school,” driven by the steadfast belief that “one day will be free” and that an educated populace would be essential for that future.
These early experiences instilled a unique combination of quiet strength and a deep-seated commitment to servant leadership. Crucially, the “discernment” cultivated while living a double life under threat became the same foundational skill she would later deploy to “read the room” with difficult stakeholders and assess the complex power dynamics of corporate boards.
Professional life is inevitably marked by challenges and setbacks. Resilience is demonstrated not by the avoidance of failure, but by the response to it. This section examines how Neo Dongwana’s resilient mindset enabled her to overcome a major professional hurdle and manage intensely high-pressure stakeholder environments.
In a powerful anecdote of vulnerability and resolve, Ms. Dongwana recounted failing both parts of her board exam on her first attempt. Her process for dealing with this significant setback was methodical: first, allow for a “pity party,” and then, decisively, stand up to “brush myself off and get on with my life.” This mindset was not just about recovery; it was about re-engaging with greater focus and determination. The ultimate outcome of this resilient approach was extraordinary: on her second attempt, she “came seventh in the country.”
As the client service leader for SAA at Deloitte, Ms. Dongwana navigated a complex environment involving joint auditors and demanding government stakeholders. A specific example crystallized the strategic patience required: having to wait four hours outside a CFO’s office simply to negotiate an audit fee. The lessons learned from this incident provide key takeaways for any leader in a high-stakes role:
- Read the Room: Understand the context, culture, and personalities involved, especially in the public sector.
- Remain Measured: Avoid emotional reactions like “throwing your toys” and maintain a calm, professional demeanor even when faced with disrespect.
- Prioritize the Objective: Recognize what is truly important—in this case, securing a material audit fee for the firm—and remain steadfastly focused on that goal.
- Stick to Your Mandate: Despite the necessary “tap dancing,” always adhere to your ethical North Star and professional duty.
This ability to manage external pressures with poise is a critical skill that extends directly into navigating the equally complex dynamics of the boardroom.
Board members face an inherent tension between fostering a collaborative, trusting relationship with management and maintaining the independence required for effective oversight. This section explores the critical importance of setting and maintaining professional boundaries to preserve a board’s ability to govern effectively.
- Collaboration between a board and its management team is a “no-brainer.” Both groups are, or should be, working towards the same organizational strategy. A functional and productive relationship is therefore essential for success.
- While collaboration is key, Ms. Dongwana emphasized her personal rule: “You can be friendly with management, but you don’t have to be their friends.” This principle is not about being aloof; it is about preserving objectivity. She illustrated this with a cautionary tale of an audit committee chair who regularly used the CFO’s holiday house.
- When the CFO was later found to have engaged in misconduct requiring disciplinary action, this overly familiar relationship created a clear conflict of interest. The board found itself “tiptoeing” around the issue, unable to act decisively. The outcome was a mere “slap on the wrist,” a powerful demonstration of how compromised objectivity undermines effective governance and accountability.
True professional collaboration is ultimately enabled, not hindered, by the clear boundaries that preserve a board’s unimpeachable authority to “call someone to order.”
The most severe tests of resilience often emerge not from the professional sphere but from personal life. This section delves into Neo Dongwana’s experience with a major health crisis, highlighting the courageous vulnerability and life-altering choices that can redefine one’s priorities and path.
Her first major health scare was dramatic and severe. It began with passing out on a first date and led to a 12-hour operation, after which she was “paralyzed from here down.” This experience forced her to “relearn to walk” and left her with long-term consequences, including epilepsy that requires chronic medication. This grueling process of physically rebuilding her life from the ground up provided a literal foundation for the metaphorical reconstruction of her priorities that would come later.
Years later, a second “wakeup call” came with the premature birth of her son at six months, weighing just 1.02 kg. The immense stress of this period caused her illness to return “with a vengeance.” Faced with this crisis, she and her husband, both partners at Deloitte, recognized that “something’s got to give.” She made the difficult decision to sacrifice her partnership to prioritize her child’s well-being and her own health. This choice was framed by a powerful sentiment shared by her husband: “not making a choice is also making a choice.”
By embracing vulnerability and making a difficult but necessary choice, Ms. Dongwana demonstrated that the ultimate act of self-leadership and resilience is knowing when to pivot to protect what matters most.
Effective board service requires more than just technical expertise; it demands discernment, courage, and a sophisticated understanding of governance dynamics. This section distills Neo Dongwana’s practical, hard-won advice for current and aspiring non-executive board members.
Her primary advice to anyone considering a board seat is unequivocal: “Do your due diligence.” It is essential not to be swayed by the flattery of an invitation but to conduct a thorough investigation before accepting. Key areas to investigate include:
- Who is on the board? Assess the caliber and reputation of your potential future colleagues.
- Who is the chairperson?
- Who is in senior management?
- Reputational Association: Critically ask if you want your personal brand to be associated with these individuals and this organization.
A stark case study illustrated the unpredictable nature of board politics. Serving on the board of a listed company where a government minister was a major shareholder, she witnessed a “bloodbath” at the Annual General Meeting (AGM). Despite having sent proxies confirming the existing board, the minister walked into the meeting “in person” and, in concert with another government entity, voted the majority of the board out. This provided a critical lesson in governance: a shareholder can override prior proxies and change their vote on the day of the AGM, demonstrating how quickly power dynamics can shift.
In the immediate, chaotic aftermath, the remaining board members nominated Ms. Dongwana to become the new chair of the massive, now-destabilized company. She refused immediately. This decision was a profound act of discernment, with Ms. Dongwana stating her reasoning bluntly: “No I know my limitations… I’m not chairing this.” Her refusal demonstrates that true resilience in governance is not just about weathering storms, but also having the self-awareness to know when not to step into a volatile situation for which you are not ready.
Effective board tenure is built on a foundation of careful selection and a clear-eyed, pragmatic understanding of the power dynamics at play.
The final part of the session broadened the discussion to address systemic issues like pay inequity and a lack of critical leadership in society. This section captures Neo Dongwana’s perspective on how leaders at all levels can, and must, act to drive meaningful change.
When asked about unequal pay for women, her response was direct. Meaningful change only happens when you “put people in positions that matter.” This is not just a matter of policy but of “walking the talk.” She issued a call to action for leaders at all levels—not just HR—to actively push back on unfair compensation for their team members. Her advice is to “be influential in your corner where you are,” using whatever power one has to advocate for fairness.
Addressing the broader issues of national leadership and corruption, she offered a multi-layered approach grounded in civic responsibility and innovative thinking:
- Use Your Vote Wisely: The most fundamental tool for change is the vote. She stated clearly, “we can’t keep voting the same way and wanting a different outcome.”
- Rethink Governance Models: She recounted a pre-1994 model where mayors were chosen as the “most respected person” in a community, not based on party affiliation, and often served without pay. This historical example suggests a need to rethink how local leaders are selected to prioritize competence and integrity over politics.
- Take Local Action: Where formal systems fail, citizens can and should take practical action in their own communities, citing the example from her own suburb: “we fix our own roads.”
Masterclass with Prof. Deon Rossouw
A masterclass discussing the critical role of ethics in corporate governance, particularly in a tumultuous global environment. Professor Rossouw emphasises that ethics is inseparable from corporate governance, using the Steinhoff scandal as a cautionary example of how neglecting ethics, identified as a key governance red flag, can lead to catastrophic corporate failures. The presentation introduces a simple ethical framework involving the self, the good, and the other, and defines organisational ethics using the King V Report framework, which stresses the necessity of ethical and effective leadership to achieve governance outcomes.
Brief
Short Explainer Video
Podcast-Style Summary
Full Recording
Key Questions Answered by Prof Rossouw
Ethics is not a peripheral or “soft” issue in corporate governance; it is its foundational core. Professor Rossouw argues that treating ethics as an afterthought is one of the most significant indicators of potential corporate failure. Effective governance is built upon an ethical framework, and neglecting this foundation exposes an organization to catastrophic risk.
1. The Steinoff Case Study: A Cautionary Tale
The collapse of Steinoff serves as a stark example of what happens when ethics is systematically ignored. The company’s own corporate governance reports contained a clear and repeated warning sign. In its 2011 report, the board signed off on the following statement:
“Steinoff has not established a formal process for obtaining assurance on ethical awareness and ethical compliance throughout the group.”
This admission—that the company could not confidently say its people were aware of or complying with its ethical standards—was not a one-time oversight. Ironically, the exact same sentence was repeated in the company’s reports for 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, a year before the scandal broke in 2017. This served as a clear, documented red flag indicating a profound lack of ethical oversight at the highest level.
2. The Number One Governance Red Flag
Following a series of major corporate failures, an expert group from the King Committee analyzed the common precursors to these scandals. Their conclusion was unequivocal. The number one governance red flag they identified was the deliberate downplay or neglect of ethics.
The logic is simple and powerful: individuals engaged in fraudulent or corrupt behavior will actively avoid ethics scrutiny. The last thing they want is a spotlight on their conduct. Professor Rossouw notes historical parallels, such as Enron and Eskom closing their well-staffed ethics offices in the build-up to their respective crises. This pattern demonstrates that the absence or dismantling of ethics oversight is often a precursor to disaster. This connects directly to personal leadership. A well-known TV anchor who interviewed over 50 highly successful CEOs found they all shared a common trait: a “very strong moral compass.” The reason, he concluded, is that for a long and sustainable career, “you need only one silly misstep to destroy an entire career.”
3. Ethics as the Core of the King Five Definition
The inseparability of ethics and governance is explicitly codified in the King Five definition of corporate governance:
“corporate governance is the exercise of ethical and effective leadership by the governing body towards the realization of the following governance outcomes…”
The word “ethical” appears twice within this core definition, emphasizing that leadership cannot be considered “effective” if it is not also “ethical.” This places ethics not as a consequence of good governance, but as its essential starting point and guiding principle.
Having established why ethics is central, it becomes essential to understand precisely what we mean by the term.
To effectively implement and govern ethics, leaders require clear, functional definitions that can guide behavior and decision-making at both the individual and organizational levels. Professor Rossouw provides simple yet comprehensive definitions to anchor this understanding.
1. A Universal Definition of Personal Ethics
Personal ethics can be understood through a simple “triangle” framework that connects three core elements:
- The Self: The individual actor making a decision or taking an action.
- The Good: The process of balancing what is beneficial for oneself with what is beneficial for others.
- The Other: The people who are affected by one’s actions and decisions.
In essence, ethical behavior involves considering the impact of one’s actions on others, not just on oneself. This concept is universally recognized and is captured in variations of the “Golden Rule” found in cultures across the globe: Do good unto others as you expect others to do good unto yourself.
Crucially, our ethical values are not innate; they are acquired from our homes, schools, and social environments. This process of value formation is a “lifelong process” that only ends on “the day that you die.” This insight is vital for leaders, because it means that organizations can, and should, play an active role to “shape the values of people in our workplaces.”
2. Defining Organizational Ethics
This personal framework scales up to the organizational level. Two definitions were offered to capture its meaning in a corporate context:
- The Informal CEO Definition A CEO once provided Professor Rossouw with a practical, memorable definition: “Organizational ethics is about preventing decent people from doing stupid things.” This highlights that unethical behavior, in retrospect, is often irrational and damaging, and that systems are needed to guide well-intentioned people away from poor decisions.
- The Formal King Five Definition The official King Five report provides a more structured definition that mirrors the “self, good, other” triangle: “In relation to organizations ethics refers to ethical values applied to decision making conduct and how resources and relationships are used and affected by organizations.”
Here, the organization is “the self,” its ethical values represent “the good,” and the stakeholders it impacts are “the others.” This definition firmly places the onus on the organization to apply its values to its tangible actions and their consequences.
These definitions provide a foundation, but they must be operationalized through formal governance structures designed to oversee them.
The King V Report provides a clear roadmap for governing bodies, shifting the focus from mere compliance with rules to the execution of specific responsibilities that drive tangible, positive outcomes. It defines what a board must do and what it must achieve.
1. The Four Core Governance Responsibilities
Professor Rossouw outlined the four primary responsibilities of a governing body, which form the “how” of good governance:
- Steering and Setting Direction: The board’s foremost duty is strategy. An organization exists to fulfill a purpose, and the board is responsible for setting a clear strategy to ensure that purpose is achieved.
- Approval of Policy and Planning: To execute the strategy, the board must approve management’s plans, budgets, and—critically—the policies that define acceptable conduct and operational boundaries.
- Oversight and Monitoring: The board must monitor progress against strategic objectives. This is a profound challenge, because “as non-executives we are fairly blind, sometimes totally blind as in the case of Steinoff.” This blindness can only be cured by credible, accurate, and timely reporting from management.
- Accountability and Reporting: The governing body has a duty to be accountable to its stakeholders. This is achieved through transparent reporting (e.g., annual, integrated, and sustainability reports) that tells the story of the organization’s journey and performance.
2. The Four Measurable Outcomes of Good Governance
Simply performing these four responsibilities is not enough. The ultimate test of good governance lies in the outcomes it produces. An organization must measure its success against these four interconnected results:
- Ethical Culture: An environment where people instinctively “do the right thing even when nobody is watching.” It is a group habit of awareness and adherence to ethical standards.
- Good Performance and Value Creation: The organization creates tangible benefits for all stakeholders who contribute to its success—including employees, suppliers, customers, communities, the natural environment, and “the unborn generations as well.”
- Conformance and Prudent Control: The organization adheres to both external laws and its own internal policies. It diligently protects all its assets, including its financial capital, infrastructure, and reputation.
- Legitimacy: The organization is trusted by its stakeholders and seen as a responsible corporate citizen within the communities and environments in which it operates.
This high-level framework sets the standard, but achieving an ethical culture, the first and most foundational outcome, requires a dedicated, practical process.
Moving ethics from a policy document to a lived reality requires a systematic and proactive process. The “Governance of Ethics Framework,” developed at The Ethics Institute and adopted by King Five, provides a structured approach for building and embedding a robust ethical culture.
1. Foundational Principles
Before implementing formal structures, two principles must be in place:
- Tone at the Top: The journey begins with unwavering commitment from leadership. This extends beyond the boardroom and C-suite to the most critical level for cultural transmission: middle management. If the ethical tone does not cascade down through this layer, it will fail to take root in the organization.
- The Integrity of Individual Directors: King Five’s Principle One emphasizes that organizational ethics is built on the personal ethics of its leaders. A director with integrity exhibits key characteristics: they act in good faith and with intellectual honesty, always prioritize the best interest of the organization, actively avoid and manage conflicts of interest, and act ethically even when not legally required to do so.
2. The Governance of Ethics Framework
With these principles as a foundation, an organization can implement a six-step cyclical framework:
- Leadership Commitment (Tone at the Top): The board and executive team must visibly and consistently champion ethical conduct.
- Governance Structures (Board & Social and Ethics Committee): Formal oversight is assigned to the board and, specifically, the Social and Ethics Committee.
- Ethics Management (Ethics Officers, Risk Assessment, Strategy, and Plan): Dedicated resources, such as ethics officers, are needed to conduct proper ethics risk assessments, develop a strategy, and create an actionable management plan.
- Institutionalization (Familiarity, Encouragement, and Monitoring of Standards): This is the crucial work of making ethics real. It involves ensuring employees are familiar with standards, encouraging compliance, and monitoring behavior.
- Independent Assessment: The organization’s ethics efforts must be independently assessed for adequacy and effectiveness, typically by internal audit or an external body, “to avoid ‘marking your own homework.'”
- Reporting: The findings from monitoring and assessment are reported to governance structures, which in turn enables accountable reporting to external stakeholders.
3. The Two Types of Ethical Cultures
This framework helps an organization evolve its ethical culture. Professor Rossouw distinguished between two primary types of cultures.
- The first, a compliance-based culture, relies on extrinsic motivation. As he explains with a powerful analogy, it’s “like speeding on the highway and you see the traffic cop… you slow down for a moment but when nobody’s watching you speed again.” It is fear-based and focuses on catching wrongdoing. While it may be a necessary starting point for a company in crisis, its core limitation is that it only works when someone is watching.
- The ultimate goal is a values-based culture, where ethical conduct is self-governing.
Feature | Compliance-Based Culture | Values-Based Culture |
Motivation | Extrinsic (Fear of being caught) | Intrinsic (Conviction, doing the right thing) |
Driver | Fear-based approach; Zero Tolerance | Value-based approach; Responsibility |
Focus | Preventing unethical behavior | Promoting ethical behavior |
Key Activity | Catching those who do wrong | Catching those who do right |
Limitation | Only works when someone is watching | Works even when nobody is watching |
An organization’s internal culture ultimately manifests externally through its actions as a corporate citizen.
The Social and Ethics Committee (SEC) is a key governance structure in South Africa, established by law to ensure companies operate as responsible citizens. The King Reports have sought to elevate this committee’s function from a compliance-focused exercise to a strategic driver of ethical performance and stakeholder value.
1. The Statutory Mandate of the SEC
Under the Companies Act, an SEC is a legal requirement for specific types of companies: all state-owned companies, all listed companies, and any other company with a public interest score over 500.
The committee’s core statutory duty is to monitor the company’s performance against relevant legislation and codes of best practice across four specific domains of corporate citizenship. This includes identifying and reporting any instances of non-compliance to the board and, annually, to shareholders.
2. The Four Domains of Responsible Corporate Citizenship
The SEC must oversee the company’s impact and standing in four key areas:
- The Economy: This includes practices related to paying taxes, preventing corruption, and contributing to economic transformation.
- The Workplace: This covers employee-related matters such as health and safety, fair labor practices, and professional development.
- Society: This involves the company’s impact on its customers and communities, including product safety and community relations.
- The Natural Environment: This focuses on the organization’s ecological footprint and its efforts to operate sustainably.
3. King V’s Recommended Enhancements
King V makes several key recommendations to strengthen the SEC’s role beyond its basic statutory mandate:
- Formally delegate oversight of “organizational ethics” to the SEC. As Professor Rossouw notes, “the funny thing about the social and ethics committee is that the word ethics appears in the name of the committee and not once in its mandate.” King V corrects this by recommending that the board explicitly delegate responsibility for governing ethics to the SEC.
- Move beyond simple compliance to assess the impact and outcomes. The committee should not just check boxes but evaluate the real-world effects of the organization’s activities on stakeholders and the environment.
- Recommend that all other companies and organizations should have a similar structure. Recognizing that ethical governance is key to sustainability for all, King Five advises that organizations not legally required to have an SEC should voluntarily establish a similar structure to govern their social and ethics performance.
While these formal structures are world-class, their existence alone has not prevented major governance failures, raising a critical question about the gap between theory and practice.
An audience member raised the central paradox of the South African corporate landscape: the country is a global leader in corporate governance theory (via the King Reports) yet continues to suffer from significant, high-profile governance failures in practice. Professor Rossouw’s diagnosis points not to a lack of rules, but a deficit in leadership, enforcement, and mindset.
1. The Fallacy of More Legislation
Professor Rossouw’s direct response to what is missing was emphatic: “we don’t need more legislation.” He asserts that South Africa has more than enough laws and regulations. The belief that adding more rules will solve the underlying problem is a fallacy; the existing frameworks are sufficient if they are properly applied and enforced.
2. The Three Corporate Mindsets
Professor Rossouw observes that organizations typically fall into one of three categories regarding their commitment to ethics, which helps explain the gap between theory and practice:
- The Proactive: These clients see ethics as essential for sustainability. As one bank CEO stated, “We don’t trade in money… we trade in trust.” They actively seek to build and maintain an ethical culture.
- The Reactive: These clients are merely “ticking boxes” for auditors or regulators. Their engagement is superficial and driven by compliance rather than conviction.
- The Post-Scandal: Having experienced the pain and humiliation of a major failure, these clients become “deadly serious” about ethics, promising themselves, “I will never get in this situation again.”
3. The True Deficit
The gap between governance theory and practice is caused by a deficit in three critical areas:
- Better Law Enforcement: The existing laws must be effectively and consistently enforced to create real consequences for misconduct.
- Ethical and Effective Leadership: This was identified as the single most important factor. Only leaders who are both ethical in their intent and effective in their execution can close the gap and build truly resilient organizations.
- Responsive Stakeholders: Active and engaged citizens and stakeholders have immense power. Using tools like social media, stakeholders can call out wrongful behavior and hold leaders accountable, creating external pressure that leaders cannot ignore.
4. The National Challenge: Tolerance of Unethical Behavior
Professor Rossouw cited the “Ethics at Work” survey, which revealed a troubling contradiction. The survey found that among 14 developed nations, South Africa had the most sophisticated systems for the management of ethics. However, it also had the worst record for tolerating unethical behavior.
This cultural tolerance is the core of the problem. Professor Rossouw’s final warning is that the ultimate challenge for leaders is to reverse the pervasive belief that success requires compromise.
“we start believing that it is impossible to run a successful organization without cutting a few corners… And that is the one thing that we as leaders need to turn around… you don’t need to break a few eggs to make a omelette.”
