In today's fast-changing workplace, the old leadership styles, where a title alone commanded authority and respect, are simply not enough anymore. Now, true respect is earned through a leader's actions, their ability to create an environment that's both supportive and challenging, and their dedication to their team's development and well-being. Leaders who successfully adapt to this new reality don't just manage; they inspire. They build workplaces where talent flourishes, teamwork thrives, and open communication is standard. From my own experience, especially managing engineering teams, I've seen that without this earned respect, disengagement and low morale can quickly set in, ultimately hindering organizational goals.

At the heart of earning this deep respect is a powerful combination that leaders strive to integrate into their philosophy: psychological safety, radical candor, and empathy. These aren't just pleasant characteristics; they are fundamental skills and cultural elements that, when combined, transform workplaces into vibrant centers of innovation, engagement, and high performance.

Psychological Safety: Fostering a Fearless Environment

Imagine a workplace where everyone feels secure enough to truly contribute, express themselves, ask questions, voice concerns, admit mistakes, and even challenge existing norms without fear of punishment or humiliation. This is psychological safety, a concept widely explored in leadership studies. It doesn't mean creating an overly comfortable environment or avoiding difficult conversations; rather, it’s about cultivating a culture where honesty is possible and learning from failures is encouraged. When employees experience this deep sense of safety, they are significantly more likely to admit and discuss errors, turning potential setbacks into valuable learning opportunities. This openness fuels creativity and innovation, as team members feel secure enough to propose new ideas and experiment with different approaches without fear of judgment if these initiatives don't immediately succeed.

Leaders play a crucial role in building this fearless environment. They must actively frame the work, explaining why open input is essential and acknowledging that uncertainties and mistakes are an unavoidable part of innovation and problem-solving in a volatile world. This is a vital lesson, especially in fast-paced environments where iterating and learning from product issues are key to progress. They also need to actively invite engagement by proactively asking thoughtful, open-ended questions that encourage diverse perspectives and by admitting their own fallibility—acknowledging when they don't know something or have made a mistake. This makes it safer for others to do the same. Crucially, how leaders respond to input—especially bad news or differing opinions—can either build or destroy psychological safety. A productive response involves showing appreciation and focusing on understanding the root cause and extracting lessons for the future, much like Alan Mulally at Ford, who, when an executive shared a significant problem, responded, “Thank you for that clear line of sight. How can we help?” This kind of response reinforces the message that speaking up is valued and safe.

Radical Candor: Balancing Care with Directness

Once the foundation of psychological safety is established, the path is clear for radical candor, a powerful communication framework. This approach balances "Caring Personally" with "Challenging Directly." Caring personally means demonstrating genuine concern for individuals as human beings, not just as employees, while challenging directly involves giving clear, specific, and often difficult feedback to help them grow and improve their performance. When leaders successfully combine these two dimensions, they deliver honest feedback with kindness and a sincere intent to support development.

Radical candor profoundly transforms team dynamics by creating a culture of open, honest, and constructive communication. It helps team members understand precisely where they stand, what they are doing well, and where they need to improve, keeping everyone moving in the right direction and supporting individual development. A key outcome is the building of trust; when employees believe their leader genuinely cares about them and is invested in their success, they are more likely to receive challenging feedback constructively, rather than defensively.

However, it's crucial to navigate this effectively and avoid common pitfalls. "Obnoxious Aggression" occurs when leaders challenge directly but without personal care, leading to harsh and damaging feedback that erodes psychological safety. "Manipulative Insincerity" is characterized by a lack of both care and directness, breeding cynicism and a toxic work environment. A common trap for well-meaning leaders is "Ruinous Empathy," where they genuinely care but hesitate to provide difficult feedback for fear of hurting feelings, ultimately withholding crucial information individuals need to grow and improve. The aim is to provide guidance that is truly helpful, even when it's hard to deliver or receive.

Practically, this means giving timely and specific feedback (praise publicly and promptly, criticism privately and promptly), ensuring feedback is humble, helpful, and focused on behavior rather than personality, and, importantly, actively soliciting feedback about your own performance. Asking questions like, "What could I do or stop doing that would make it easier to work with me?" not only provides valuable insights but also models vulnerability and a commitment to open communication.

Empathy: The Power of Understanding and Support

Finally, infusing both psychological safety and radical candor is the profound power of empathy. In a leadership context, empathy goes beyond merely feeling sorry for someone; it is a deep cognitive and emotional skill that involves understanding another person's perspectives, experiences, values, and motivations, even when these differ significantly from one's own. It's about grasping why an individual believes what they believe or feels what they feel, which allows for more effective communication and collaboration. True empathetic leadership also involves an element of action—not just understanding, but also providing appropriate emotional support and creating a feeling of security for team members.

Several common misconceptions often hinder the adoption of empathetic leadership. It's often mistakenly seen as an innate trait, but it's a learnable skill that can be cultivated through conscious intention and practice. Nor does empathy require agreeing with another person's beliefs; it's about appreciating their unique perspective. Furthermore, empathy and accountability are not mutually exclusive; empathetic understanding can actually fuel expectations and aspirations by informing how support and challenges are delivered.

Empathetic leadership has a profound and positive impact on employee well-being and engagement. When leaders demonstrate genuine empathy, employees report higher levels of job satisfaction, feel more valued and respected, and experience reduced stress and burnout. This approach aligns with the wisdom found in studies of productive teams, which highlight that the major issues in knowledge work are human and sociological, not purely technical. Leaders can actively "engineer" empathy through practical steps: practicing active listening, which means fully focusing on the speaker and asking clarifying questions. It also involves engaging in perspective-taking, trying to see situations from team members' viewpoints. A powerful technique is to shift from judgment to curiosity, asking questions instead of making assumptions. Empathetic leaders also acknowledge emotions—like anxiety, frustration, or grief—and work with individuals to find strategies to reduce stress and regain focus, collaborating on meaningful solutions to their challenges.

The Interconnected Triangle: A Holistic Leadership Approach

The journey toward becoming a respected leader is not about mastering isolated skills but about weaving together psychological safety, radical candor, and empathy into a cohesive leadership approach. These three elements form an interconnected triangle, each reinforcing and enabling the others, creating a virtuous cycle that cultivates a culture of trust, open communication, and high performance. Psychological safety lays the essential groundwork for teams, allowing radical candor to be practiced effectively. Radical candor, when balanced with genuine care (empathy), builds trust and reinforces that sense of safety. Empathy, in turn, serves as the crucial lubricant and guiding intelligence for both; by understanding team members' perspectives, leaders can more effectively frame work, invite engagement, respond productively to concerns, and tailor candid feedback with appropriate sensitivity, thus preventing radical candor from becoming obnoxious aggression.

Imagine for a moment a leader who has truly internalized and consistently practices these principles. This leader actively frames their team's work as a learning journey, acknowledging uncertainty and the value of every team member's input. They make it a habit to ask probing questions, not to interrogate, but to genuinely understand different viewpoints and to encourage even the quietest voices to contribute. When mistakes occur, this leader responds not with blame, but with a focus on understanding the root cause and extracting lessons for the future, perhaps echoing Alan Mulally at Ford. This leader doesn't shy away from difficult conversations; they provide feedback that is direct, specific, and actionable, yet always delivered with a clear sense of care for the individual's growth and well-being. They also actively solicit feedback on their own performance, demonstrating vulnerability and a commitment to continuous improvement.

In such a team, trust is palpable. Communication flows openly and honestly. Team members feel safe to experiment, to challenge assumptions, and to support one another. Collaboration isn't forced but happens organically, and innovation flourishes because diverse ideas are welcomed and built upon, and failures are treated as stepping stones rather than stumbling blocks. Leaders who operate in this manner do not need to demand respect; they earn it through their consistent actions and the positive, productive culture they build. This genuine respect translates into loyalty, discretionary effort, and a team that is not only successful in its endeavors but also a place where people feel valued and are proud to belong.

The absence of any one of these foundational pillars—psychological safety, radical candor, or empathy—can significantly undermine, if not entirely negate, the positive effects of the others. For instance, attempting to implement radical candor in an environment devoid of psychological safety and empathy will likely be perceived as mere aggression or harsh criticism, damaging morale and trust. Similarly, a psychologically safe environment that lacks candid feedback can lead to complacency and a failure to address underperformance. This delicate interplay underscores the critical importance of a holistic and integrated approach to leadership. Becoming a leader who embodies these qualities and earns profound respect is not a destination but a continuous journey of intentional development. It demands ongoing self-awareness, a commitment to practice, and the humility to learn from both successes and missteps. This challenging yet profoundly rewarding endeavor offers a clear path for leaders committed to making a meaningful difference and co-creating organizations that are not only fit for the future but also contribute positively to the well-being of their members.

*The concept for this piece was entirely human-made; Gemini simply assisted the writer with the necessary grammar fixes and create the audio.

If we keep measuring poverty by how many instant noodles we can buy, we might end up as a noodle superpower—not an economic one.

Is Indonesia’s poverty rate 8.5% or over 60%? Astonishingly, both figures are true – and the difference reveals a vital lesson about national ambition. By Indonesia’s own statistics (Badan Pusat Statistik, BPS), only 8.57% of citizens (about 24 million people) live below the poverty line. Yet by the World Bank’s international standard, more than 60% (around 172 million Indonesians) are considered poor. This huge gap isn’t a mere quirk of data; it underscores how we choose our benchmarks. Are we setting the bar comfortably low, or demanding more for our people?

Few leaders understood the power of high standards better than Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s founding Prime Minister. He transformed a small, impoverished island into a thriving first-world metropolis within a generation. How? By refusing to accept mediocrity – holding Singapore to international standards, making bold decisions, and instilling fierce national pride and discipline. As Indonesia aspires to great-power status under President Prabowo Subianto, let’s learn from Lee Kuan Yew’s example. We must adopt a superpower mindset: measure ourselves against the world’s best, not the bare minimum, and lead with the vision, courage, and discipline of a developed nation.

A Tale of Two Poverty Lines: BPS vs. World Bank

Indonesia currently uses a national poverty line defined by the cost of basic needs. As of September 2024, this line was about IDR 595,000 per person per month (roughly $1.2 a day in purchasing power). This amount is calculated to cover 2,100 calories of food plus essential non-food items – essentially a subsistence diet of rice, oil, maybe instant noodles, and very modest living expenses. By this metric, 8.57% of Indonesians live in poverty.

The World Bank, however, has a higher bar. For cross-country comparison, it defines poverty in middle-income nations at $6.85 per day (PPP) – roughly 5 times our national line in real terms. When applying this more rigorous threshold, over 60% of Indonesians fall below the poverty line. In other words, a majority of our population still lives with levels of income that would be considered poor by global standards. The stark contrast (8% vs. 60% poverty) stems from different standards: BPS’s modest “basic needs” vs. an international benchmark for a decent living.

Why does this matter? Because what we count reflects what we value. Using a narrow poverty line may make our statistics look good, but it can mask the struggles of millions who earn just above the bare minimum. As one analysis noted, a higher poverty line “does not create more poor people — it acknowledges the depth of hardship that current metrics overlook”. In short, the goal of measuring poverty isn’t to produce flattering numbers – it’s to reveal reality. If we aim to truly uplift our people, we must first be honest about how many are still left behind.

High Benchmarks, High Ambitions

Choosing a more rigorous international benchmark is not about making Indonesia look bad – it’s about embracing the mindset of a nation that strives for more. Developed countries hold themselves to high standards. They continually raise the bar on what constitutes an acceptable quality of life. For instance, many advanced economies measure poverty in relative terms (e.g. percentage of median income), essentially setting a moving target to ensure prosperity is broadly shared. They do this because they believe poverty isn’t truly beaten until the vast majority of citizens enjoy a dignified standard of living.

Indonesia has made commendable progress in reducing extreme poverty over the past decades. But as we grow richer, our definition of poverty should evolve. It’s no longer just about survival calories, but about dignity and opportunity. A recent policy insight pointed out that Indonesia’s official poverty threshold is still akin to those of far poorer countries, which “signals a disconnect between our economic achievements and how we measure hardship.” Put simply, if we keep using a low bar, we risk underestimating the problem. Millions of “non-poor” Indonesians by BPS standards still lack proper nutrition, safe housing, or access to higher education – things a truly developed nation would consider basic rights.

By adopting a higher standard, we send a powerful message: that Indonesia is serious about becoming a developed country. It reflects an attitude of “no one left behind” – not just avoiding starvation, but ensuring every family can thrive in a modern economy. Yes, our official poverty rate would initially appear higher if we raised the threshold. Some may worry this could embarrass us. But in truth, acknowledging a larger challenge is a sign of strength, not weakness. It means we have the ambition to tackle poverty in all its forms, not just the easiest form. Using global benchmarks is an act of aspirational leadership – it aligns with the mindset of a nation that doesn’t settle for the minimum, but rather aims for excellence in human development.

Think Like a Superpower to Become One

If Indonesia dreams of becoming a global superpower, it must start thinking like one. Great powers do not achieve greatness by being complacent with low metrics or modest targets. They do it by constantly challenging themselves, confronting hard truths, and setting bold goals. “Good enough” is not in their vocabulary. Likewise, we should not be content that our national poverty rate is single-digit when by higher criteria so many of our people are still struggling. We shouldn’t say, “Well, 9% is small enough.” Instead, we should ask, “Why not 0%? Why not ensure every Indonesian has a comfortable life by international standards?”

Thinking like a superpower means adopting a mindset of abundance and confidence. It means benchmarking our education, infrastructure, health care, and yes, poverty eradication efforts against the world’s top performers – not against the weakest. For example, rather than celebrating that our poverty is lower than some poorer countries’, we should be aiming to match countries like South Korea or even Singapore in social welfare. It means setting targets like eradicating extreme poverty and dramatically shrinking moderate poverty, building a huge middle class that befits a top-five world economy.

Crucially, a superpower mindset also means planning long-term and investing in people. It’s about believing that Indonesians deserve the best quality of life we can provide, and marshaling national will to achieve it. This perspective was echoed in our own government’s Vision 2045 – a goal to reach high-income nation status and near-zero poverty by 2045 (Indonesia’s centennial). To get there, we must act now to align our definitions and policies with that lofty aim. We have to move from a mentality of “at least we’re okay” to “let’s be the best”. No great nation ever rose by aiming low.

Lee Kuan Yew’s Leadership: Vision, Boldness, Discipline

What can Indonesia’s leaders learn from Lee Kuan Yew? The late Singaporean Prime Minister proved that holding a country to world-class standards can catalyze a transformation. Lee Kuan Yew famously described his nation as a “first-world oasis in a third-world region” – and he meant it. From the start, he refused to measure Singapore by the easy yardsticks of its poorer neighbors. Instead, he looked to the richest nations for inspiration and demanded Singapore reach that level. This relentless drive took Singapore “from Third World to First,” astonishing the world and giving Singaporeans immense pride.

How did Lee achieve it? Visionary, principled leadership. Several key lessons stand out:

• Hold Yourself to International Standards: Lee set world-class benchmarks for everything – economy, education, public cleanliness, governance. He wouldn’t tolerate “Asian standards” as an excuse for inefficiency. For instance, he imposed strict policies to ensure Singapore’s streets were clean, safe, and orderly, on par with the nicest cities abroad. “If we want high morale, we must have high standards. If we want high standards, the law must be enforced fairly and firmly,” he asserted. Under his watch, there would be no squatters in slums or chaos in the streets – people would be properly housed, streets cleaned daily, and rules enforced so that Singaporeans could hold their heads high. This insistence on quality and order elevated Singapore’s living conditions to First World levels.

• Bold Decisions and Pragmatism: Lee Kuan Yew was unafraid to make bold, even unpopular decisions for the long-term good. He liberalized the economy and invited foreign investment when others in the region were protectionist. He made English the language of business, invested heavily in education and infrastructure, and cracked down on corruption ruthlessly. In his eyes, the ultimate test of governance was improving people’s lives, not adhering to any rigid ideology. This pragmatic approach meant doing whatever worked to rapidly raise incomes and standards of living. Lee’s government was results-driven: he famously said he’d “take a bulldozer” to any obstacle blocking Singapore’s progress. That level of resolve is what allowed big, transformative projects to succeed.

• National Pride and Discipline: Lee understood that to reach top-tier status, Singaporeans needed a culture of discipline, unity, and excellence. He inculcated a strong sense of national identity and personal responsibility. Policies like mandatory military service, strict law enforcement, and zero tolerance for laziness or graft were geared toward building a tough, resilient society. This was not about authoritarianism for its own sake, but about forging a people capable of punching above their weight. Singapore’s success, as observers noted, reflected the man himself: disciplined, industrious, pragmatic, and always ahead of the curve. Lee took pride in proving that a small nation with no resources could become a global powerhouse through sheer willpower and high standards.

Indonesia is, of course, a far larger and more complex country than Singapore. We cannot copy-paste Singapore’s model, nor should we overlook the differences. But the core principles of Lee Kuan Yew’s leadership are universally applicable: set ambitious standards, be courageously decisive, and foster discipline and pride in the nation. Lee Kuan Yew didn’t wait for Singapore to “become rich” before enforcing high expectations – he enforced high expectations to make Singapore rich. That is the mindset our policymakers and leaders should embrace.

A Call to Action: Forward-Thinking Leadership for Indonesia

Indonesia stands at a crossroads. With our economy growing and our sights set on Vision 2045, now is the time to choose the higher path. We call upon President Prabowo Subianto and all Indonesian leaders to adopt forward-thinking leadership in the mold of Lee Kuan Yew – leadership that is not afraid to confront inconvenient truths or raise standards. This means revisiting our metrics and targets in national planning. Don’t aim for just reducing extreme poverty; aim to grow a prosperous middle-class society by global benchmarks. Don’t be satisfied that our statistics look good; ensure that our people’s lives are truly getting better by world standards.

Embracing a first-world mindset will require political courage. It may mean acknowledging that issues like poverty, education quality, or healthcare coverage are bigger than we thought when measured against top-tier criteria. But such honesty can be transformative. It can build public support for bolder reforms – from upgrading rural livelihoods and nutrition, to overhauling education and job creation – because people will understand the mission is to make Indonesia world-class. We should tap into patriotic pride: not the pride of saying “we have less poverty than country X,” but the pride of a nation that refuses to accept that any of its citizens live in second-class conditions.

Lee Kuan Yew showed that mindset is half the battle. If we believe Indonesia is destined for greatness, we must act like it. That means setting big goals and never resting on our laurels. (As Lee himself quipped, “Rest on laurels? I wish I could do that. No, you rest when you’re dead.” – the work of nation-building is never truly finished.) It means tightening up execution, insisting on integrity and efficiency, and being impatient with excuses. It means rallying all levels of society – government, business, and everyday citizens – around the idea that “good enough” isn’t good enough for Indonesia.

In practical terms, adopting a superpower mindset could start with simple but symbolic shifts. For example, publicly report additional poverty stats using international lines alongside the BPS figures – let everyone see where we stand and use it as motivation to do better. Set targets to drastically cut the “global poverty” rate in Indonesia in the coming decade, not just the national poverty rate. Invest in data and research (like that from our universities and think-tanks) to continually adjust our standards of hardship as the country gets wealthier, so policies always aim higher. These actions would signal that Indonesia is serious about joining the ranks of developed nations.

Finally, leadership must inspire. President Prabowo has a unique opportunity to galvanize the country with a bold vision of an Indonesia that meets the highest global standards – an Indonesia that confidently leads in Southeast Asia and the world. Such inspiration is not born from complacency, but from a candid assessment of where we lag and a fearless commitment to improve. By learning from Lee Kuan Yew’s ethos, Indonesia’s leaders can foster a culture that says: we will measure ourselves against the best, and we will not rest until we attain it.

The time to act is now. If we want to become a superpower, let’s start thinking and governing with the excellence of one. Let’s learn from the best, hold our heads high, and tackle our challenges with ambitious resolve. By raising our standards – whether in defining poverty or in any field of national development – we raise our nation. And in doing so, we move closer to the day when Indonesian prosperity and success truly rival the world’s greatest, fulfilling the promise of our independence and the dreams of our people. Indonesia bisa!