This paper looks at creative leadership approach – a leadership that is not widely talked and used,

however has become a cornerstone for any institution that aspires to succeed in its endeavour at this
modern time. The paper discusses the meaning of creative leadership and its appropriateness to higher
education setting where established norm of hierarchical leadership is, day by day, becoming the thing
of the past. Leadership at higher education is messy and chaotic; and supervising the members is like
herding cats. They run and mess around everything. Leadership at higher education is no more
hierarchical and linear. Rather, it functions in contrary to Newtonian paradigm. Newtonian worldview
claims that there is a linear cause-effect phenomenon such as, if you command, followers will obey.
Newtonian paradigm also believes that the world is made up of parts, and if these part and their
interactions are taken care, things will run smoothly and predictably (Ascough, 2002). However,
phenomenon at higher education is not well organised and stratified. Randomness and disorderliness
abound. The old Newtonian paradigm of authority and power such as, “I am your boss’ or “you are my
follower” are fast fading away in this accelerated information world. The emergence of seemingly
chaotic, disorganised and non-linear phenomenon at higher education seeks out for creative leadership
– a type of leadership that believes in unpredictability of the outcomes, empowering members, and
building relations, because leadership is a relational process. However, under the cover of chaos, the
members at higher education organise themselves into certain workable patterns. Thus, it is important
that leadership at higher education acknowledge the fluidity and spontaneity of the organisation and it
members. Leaders need to be creative. Creative leaders are aware and always look for mining the gold
from the members for the common benefit.

The rich metaphor of ‘mining the gold in your workplace’ (Damiani,1998) sums up the conception of
‘creative leadership. The gold with all its connotations is there among the employees; the creative
leader radiates his/her warmth and virtue to facilitate the mining of it. A manager cannot do that; a
leader can. Rather, a creative leader does. Creative leaders use ‘authentic leadership’ – one that springs
from auctoritas (authority from character) than potestas (authority from power). This is also one of the
tenets of Havard’s (2007) virtuous leadership model. In this way, the latter parallels Bill George’s
authentic leadership model (Northouse, 2013). The model identifies authentic leaders’ purpose, values,
relationship, self-discipline and heart as essential traits that correspond respectively to passion,
behaviour, connectedness, consistency and compassion. The former traits are intrapersonal and the
latter interpersonal. Interestingly, the intrapersonal and interpersonal management of the self is a
highlight in the Buddhist perspectives on leadership. (Fancy, 2005 as cited in Gyeltshen, 2013). Fancy
(2005) cites the Buddhist master Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche as a living example of authentic leader
describing him as “engaging, genuine, and profoundly caring individual” (p. 90). The Buddhist Eight-fold
Path makes a true leader who inspires his followers with his character – auctoritas. For meaningful
leadership in the twenty first century where ‘creativity’ is the buzzword, one has to achieve Sila
(Morality), Samadhi (Mental culture) and Panna (Wisdom).These basic trio to leadership is gained
through the Eight-fold Path. Thus, one becomes capable of espousing the well-known Middle Path,
especially while grappling with problem-solving situations in one’s professional as well as in personal
life. The Madhymika or the Middle Path helps the leader to arrive at an acceptable solution avoiding
extremes. Chopra (2013) says: As you consider what kind of leader to become, it's valuable to know that
there are workable alternatives to toughness – not the opposite, which is to be soft. An entirely different
model takes you out of the hard-soft, tough-weak scheme.