The heartfelt opening speech by UN Secretary-General António Guterres at the General Assembly reflected his sense of powerlessness and frustration in the face of the world’s pressing challenges. Out-of-control wars, climate change, artificial intelligence… in short, today’s existential threats. His audience was the world, but in the room, he was surrounded by those we call ‘world leaders’.

I am very grateful to the University Chair in Values-Based Leadership for the invitation to write this text. But I ask one thing in return. As a chair, I would entrust you with the task of redefining what a world leader is. To tidy up the lexicon so we have a clear understanding of what, and whom, we are talking about.

Because leadership—a concept filled with positive connotations—either has a favorable impact on the population, or it isn’t truly leadership. We should identify it differently. What if we called them ‘responsible parties’ instead?
From the vantage point of my 25 years dedicated to humanitarian work, I know firsthand the kind of failure that Guterres was, in some way, expressing.

There is no better example of collective failure than an armed conflict, a famine that kills dozens of children, or an uncontrolled epidemic. When you lead an emergency response project—always working under overwhelming conditions and practicing triage medicine (choosing who to save and who not to)—you must be very clear on the boundaries and differences between leadership and responsibility.

We live in a world with all the means to solve its fundamental problems, yet every day it chooses not to. Moreover, we live in a world where there are already individuals who could change everything, yet each day they decide they won’t. Because there are people responsible for these existential threats. People with names and surnames, heading governments and other entities, who enjoy the label of ‘leader’.

It is essential to distinguish between popularity and prestige. They are popular, but no one can identify the Mandela of our generation—impossible to find among a new wave of leaders who, admittedly, have won their own version of the ‘Squid Game’ that contemporary politics has become in their respective countries and institutions, at the expense of their prestige among the people. This is not leadership.

It is crucial to distinguish between profit and well-being, and between performance and usefulness. There are individuals who can amass profits and wealth to obscene levels, yet are utterly useless in creating balances that ensure the well-being and dignity of the people around them. This, too, is not leadership.