Annual “no office-seeking” pledge
Evaluates the annual pledge where leaders affirm they did not seek office. This practice upholds amānah (trust) and ikhlās (sincerity), building stakeholder confidence by ensuring leadership is a selfless responsibility, not a position of personal ambition. The pledge prohibits campaigning or canvassing for appointment, but does not prohibit: (i) expressing willingness to serve when invited by the nominations process, (ii) submitting a factual statement where the governing document requires candidate information, or (iii) participating in open, skills-based recruitment conducted by the Nominations Committee. It distinguishes prohibited self-promotion from permitted transparency and service.
- Does the organization have a formal policy and/or a signed pledge for leaders affirming they did not seek their position?
- How is this policy or pledge implemented, and which leadership roles does it cover?
- How is the principle of 'no office-seeking' integrated into the formal leadership nomination and selection processes (e.g., Shura committee charter, vetting criteria)?
- What mechanisms, beyond the pledge itself, are used to cultivate a culture where leadership is viewed as a selfless responsibility rather than a position of ambition?
- How does the organization assess the impact of this practice on leadership sincerity (Ikhlas), humility (Tawadu'), and overall stakeholder trust (Amānah)?
- Where elections require candidate statements, what controls ensure statements remain factual and centrally distributed?
- How does the Nominations Committee widen the pool (EDI outreach) while preventing canvassing, and what evidence shows it works?
- How is the policy adapted for employed senior executives to distinguish improper influence from legitimate application?
- Copy of the formal 'no office-seeking' policy or the pledge document signed by leaders.
- Governing body charter, terms of reference for nomination/Shura committees, or process flows for leadership selection that incorporate this principle.
- Communication materials (e.g., annual reports, newsletters, meeting minutes) that explain the rationale for this practice to stakeholders.
- Anonymized records or minutes from nomination committees demonstrating how candidates are identified and vetted without self-promotion.
- Results from stakeholder or employee surveys that measure perceptions of leadership humility, trustworthiness, and service-orientation.
- Privacy notice specific to declarations and Legitimate Interests Assessment (LIA) summary.
- Election communications protocol (candidate template, distribution method, moderation rules).
- Breach case file template (anonymised) showing due process.
- Training completion records for trustees/committee chairs on the policy.
| Level | Rating | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | 5/5 | Comprehensive declaration process with excellent implementation, reflection components, trend data on breaches/trust, and demonstrated impact on leadership culture |
| 4 | 4/5 | Good declaration process with appropriate implementation, including standardized candidate protocols, documented outreach plans, and recorded board reviews |
| 3 | 3/5 | Basic declaration process with limited reflection or integration |
| 2 | 2/5 | Minimal or inconsistent declaration without adequate implementation |
| 1 | 1/5 | No "no office-seeking" declaration. |
Related Criteria
Discussion (1)
📋 **Version updated: 1.0.0 → 2.9.7** **Changes:** Full import from mizan-297.json
Sign in to post a comment.