The difference leadership makes? Debating and conceptualising leadership in the UK voluntary sector

View author details View Less
  • 1 Institute for Voluntary Action Research, UK
  • | 2 The Open University, UK
Full Access
Get eTOC alerts
Rights and permissions Cite this article

This paper sets out to assess the state of the academic, and policy and practice, debate around leadership in the UK voluntary sector context. There has been a lack of sustained academic interest in the notion of leadership in the UK, and equally a lack of dialogue between academia, policy and practice. As a result, it is often far from clear whether there is any agreement about what leadership consists of, and the difference that ‘improved’ leadership might make. The paper considers what is meant by leadership in the voluntary sector, and considers three dominant approaches that have been used to frame leadership in debates within the sector. The three themes we identify in existing literature are person-centred approaches, process approaches, and debates that are concerned with issues of representativeness. In particular, it draws attention to the over-reliance on individual or person-centred accounts of leadership in the sector. The paper posits instead the promise of accounts that draw attention to collective notions of leadership, and the implications of a more widespread adoption of such frames for leadership development practice and research.

Abstract

This paper sets out to assess the state of the academic, and policy and practice, debate around leadership in the UK voluntary sector context. There has been a lack of sustained academic interest in the notion of leadership in the UK, and equally a lack of dialogue between academia, policy and practice. As a result, it is often far from clear whether there is any agreement about what leadership consists of, and the difference that ‘improved’ leadership might make. The paper considers what is meant by leadership in the voluntary sector, and considers three dominant approaches that have been used to frame leadership in debates within the sector. The three themes we identify in existing literature are person-centred approaches, process approaches, and debates that are concerned with issues of representativeness. In particular, it draws attention to the over-reliance on individual or person-centred accounts of leadership in the sector. The paper posits instead the promise of accounts that draw attention to collective notions of leadership, and the implications of a more widespread adoption of such frames for leadership development practice and research.

Introduction

Leadership, and leaders, in the voluntary sector are under scrutiny perhaps more than ever before, but this does not appear to be matched by a clear evidence base nor a consensus as to what constitutes ‘good’ leadership. A set of challenges and ‘threats’ facing the sector in recent years has contributed to the impression that there is a deficit in leadership (Macmillan and McLaren, 2012). There is a sense in which, if leadership can be problematic in a large and well-resourced organisation such as Oxfam – to take one high-profile example – it must be a problem across this heterogeneous sector (see also Kirchner, 2006; DCMS, 2018). Oxfam’s travails are not an isolated example: ‘charity scandals’ and governance failures in the UK voluntary sector (for instance, the collapse of Kids Company in 2014, and the death of ‘poppy seller’ Olive Cooke in 2015) have led to calls within recent sector reviews and strategies (Marsh, 2013; Lords Inquiry, 2017; DCMS, 2018) for improved leadership. This is despite the fact that a number of leadership development initiatives designed for the sector have existed, although there is recognition that they may need to be better funded and more accessible (for an overview, see Terry et al, 2018).

This deficit view reflects the widespread belief that voluntary organisations lack leadership skills – and that if these could be identified and distilled, they could then be imparted and embedded via leadership development programmes (Clark, 2007; Green 2009). However, there is a lack of convincing evidence of this deficit; and as is widely rehearsed in community development and public engagement, it is problematic to start from a deficit model even when the motivation is to improve skills and capacities (Gilchrist and Taylor, 2016). Moreover, this concern with leadership in policy and practice domains does not always seem rooted in a solid knowledge base, including an examination of such basic questions as: What is leadership? Is there a leadership problem in the voluntary sector? And is there something distinctive about leadership in the sector?

Responding to these linked issues, we ultimately suggest that a way forward is to reject theories and models that traditionally place the focus on individuals and on hierarchical models of leadership. Instead, there is emerging evidence that, particularly in a voluntary sector context, conceptualisations of leadership that emphasise its collective nature point to productive discussions about ‘who are leaders’ and whether leadership in the voluntary sector is inherently more collective, shared or dispersed (addressing the question of whether there is something inherently distinctive about leadership in the social sector) (see Jacklin-Jarvis, 2015; Cornforth and Macmillan, 2016). This paper sets out to address these questions within a wider context, and assess the state of the academic, and policy and practice, debate around leadership in the UK voluntary sector context. Although leadership seems, to many, an attractive element of the solution to some of the apparent challenges facing the sector, it is far from clear whether there is widespread agreement about what leadership consists of, within academic, policy and practice conversations, and what difference ‘improved’ leadership might make.

In the next section, we consider what we mean by leadership in the sector, and explore three dominant approaches to framing understandings of leadership. The three approaches can be summarised as: person-centred, process understandings, and a concern with representativeness. In particular, we draw attention to the over-reliance on individual or person-centred accounts of leadership in the sector. Then, we briefly consider the promise of accounts that instead draw attention to collective notions of leadership (which have particular salience in wider academic debates about leadership), and the implications of a more widespread adoption of such frames for leadership development practice and research. We conclude with some discussion of future directions for research, and policy and practice, debate.

Key themes in the UK leadership debate

The broad academic leadership literature is extensive and difficult to categorise, spanning a range of disciplines including psychology, organisational studies, and management and business (for an overview, see Grint, 2010). In comparison with literature that focuses on ‘corporate’ or public leadership, leadership in the voluntary sector is underdeveloped and relatively lacking in theoretical sophistication (Macmillan and McLaren, 2012). It is also true that mainstream leadership scholars rarely consider the voluntary sector context in their research and writing, raising doubts over whether ‘mainstream’ theories translate well to this context. By the same token, it is open to question whether there is an identifiable form of ‘voluntary sector leadership’; and likewise whether, a priori, we would expect the voluntary sector to present a significantly different context from, say, other social domains, although we do not seek to answer those questions here. In making these observations we refer particularly to the UK context.

Leadership is notoriously hard to define: ‘Neither the scholars nor the practitioners have been able to define leadership with precision, accuracy, and consciousness so that people are able to label it correctly when they see it happening or when they engage in it’ (Rost, 1993: 6). A useful overview by Grint (2005) suggests that scholars have broadly used four different approaches to explore leadership. These are:
  1. Leadership as Person: is it who ‘leaders’ are that makes them leaders?

  2. Leadership as Results: is it what ‘leaders’ achieve that makes them leaders?

  3. Leadership as Position: is it where ‘leaders’ operate that makes them leaders?

  4. Leadership as Process: is it how ‘leaders’ get things done that makes them leaders? (Grint, 2010: 4)

Our reading of the existing UK voluntary sector literature suggests that authors have particularly responded to approaches 1 and 4, but we also identify that there has been a growing concern with how representative leadership in the voluntary sector is. We therefore suggest that these three themes emerge from the literature, and we offer a critical commentary of them in turn.

The ‘person and beyond’ in voluntary sector leadership

The majority of UK voluntary sector leadership literature reflects an attempt to identify the competencies and traits associated with being a ‘good’ leader. Effective voluntary sector leaders have been said to embody Cormack and Stanton (2003) ‘charismatic’ and ‘visionary’ qualities, and strong personal skills to actively engage with and motivate groups of individuals. For example, based on research with chief executives, Cormack and Stanton (2003) identified a list of characteristics, including emotional attachment, passion, enthusiasm for and affinity with the cause, a strategic perspective, a customer service orientation, networking and influencing, personal humility, resilience, self-confidence and being a visionary and inspirational communicator. Similarly, Chambers and Edwards-Stuart (2007) argued that strong leadership requires integrative and speculative thinking, drive and persistence, a strong value base, focus and networking. Literature exploring the challenges of leading volunteers also refers to individual leadership traits and styles (see Wilks, 2015).

While Buckingham et al (2014: 10) suggest that such lists may be problematic, as ‘“good” leadership cannot be captured within a definitive set of functions or skills that can easily be taught or learnt by aspiring leaders’, they nevertheless identify a similar set of components, as well as noting the importance of ‘authenticity’ in a leader. This point is echoed (in the wider leadership literature) in Avolio et al’s (2009 idea of an ‘authentic’ leader having self-awareness, self-regulation, relational transparency and a clear moral compass. According to some commentators, voluntary sector leaders are also required to manage the passion and values of their workforce (Kirchner, 2006), which at times can be emotionally challenging. Thus, ‘emotional intelligence’ increases awareness of their own and others’ emotions and the skills to enable a productive team and ‘such people get the best out of others, who in turn love working with and for them’ (Edwards, 2011: see also Goleman, 1995). Furthermore, there has been a push to require leaders to display ‘cultural intelligence’ in order to lead effectively in an increasingly diverse and fluid polity (Common Purpose, 2017). Nevertheless, what these accounts still have in common is a focus on the individual leader. The problem with this, argues Grint (2005), is that no two lists of leadership traits are ever the same, and there are risks associated with individuals being required to acquire ‘god-like’ status with an extensive array of attributes.

In recognition of these criticisms of the person-centred or ‘traits’ approach to leadership, voluntary sector scholars and policy and practice commentators have moved on to more process-oriented accounts. Kirchner (2007), for instance, developed a model in which the key leadership skills of a leader (in this case a chief executive) can be summarised as:

  • leading upwards – managing the governance of the organisation;

  • leading downwards – harnessing the organisation’s resources;

  • leading outwards – representing the organisation. (Kirchner, 2007)

Kirchner’s model highlights that leadership consists of a number of interconnected processes, and that leadership is not static in nature nor fixed by an individual’s characteristics and traits, but instead is dynamic and dependent on the processes involved. Other approaches to understanding leadership in the voluntary sector literature include:

Paton and Brewster’s (2008) research focused on the chief executive role, but they argue that there have been limited empirical studies on the inner experience of those playing a leadership role. In focusing on day-to-day experiences, and on the experience and interpretations on the unfolding challenges, they re-emphasise the role of actors and agency, the contextual environment, and how leadership practice can be played out in various ways. The resulting conceptual framework, which they describe as ‘what it is like being a chief executive’, includes the notion of adopting a ‘helicopter view’ in order to see the bigger picture, emotional awareness, moral reasoning and intuition. Thus, what we can discern in the developing voluntary sector leadership literature are indications of a move away from the traditional ‘leader as person’ perspective, albeit to one that is still focused on the chief executive at the centre of the ‘top’ of a hierarchical organisation.

Exploring processes within voluntary sector leadership

A relatively small strand of UK voluntary sector literature has begun to explore voluntary sector leadership from a process perspective. For example, Kay (1996: 131, emphasis added) argues that leadership is ‘a multi-dimensional process of social interaction, creating and sustaining acceptable meanings of issues, events and actions’. Rather than adopting a downward-facing model (a feature of Kirchner’s leadership model outlined in the previous subsection), the strand of literature explores the interactions between individuals from all levels of the organisation involved in the sense-making process (for instance, staff, volunteers and the board). For Kay (1996), the leadership process consists of four dimensions:

  • a social and cognitive process – this involves a sense-making process in terms of issues and events, not only using one’s own meanings, but also accepting the meanings of others;

  • a sociopolitical process – this involves encouraging a commitment towards particular meanings;

  • a cultural process – this involves embedding particular meanings within an organisation’s culture;

  • an enactment process – this refers to meanings being reproduced through actions.

In common with the ‘process’ approach, this conceptualisation shifts the focus from leadership as constructed by one individual ‘at the top’. Instead, it highlights that a wider group is involved in continuous negotiation through social interactions: ‘[A]ny account of leadership has to take account of this context of social relations; as well as the cultural context within which the meaning-making process is taking place’ (Kay, 1996: 134). Similarly, Schwabenland (2006) explores in more depth the sense-making process used within narrative, or more imaginatively, the role of ‘storytelling’ by leaders. An important facet of this is leaders telling organisational stories, particularly the founding story, which can construct and reinforce the values and commitment of the organisation’s members. However, individuals from different levels of the organisation are also involved in this storytelling process, interrelating and interpreting meanings. This practice of storytelling can enhance the leader’s strategic position by building both the internal legitimacy as well as the external profile of the organisation.

Macmillan and McLaren (2012) expand on this by adopting a wider perspective on leadership of the sector, rather than just leadership in the sector, deploying the idea of ‘strategic narrative’. They argue not only that the focus should be on who created the story, and what the story refers to, but also that it is essential to locate the story within a broader context and determine whether there is ‘room’ for it within a particular ‘field’. They distinguish two types of leadership narrative that are involved in this process:

  • an illustrative narrative – this is important for a voluntary sector organisation to effectively demonstrate its impact and activities;

  • a strategic narrative – from the perspective of the national umbrella bodies, to develop a clear narrative of the sector’s direction and focus, which in turn can inform a strong foundation to build alliances across sectors.

Macmillan and McLaren (2012) identify a number of ‘strategic narratives’ that have evolved from voluntary sector leadership national bodies, which are informed by their own ideas of leadership and what it should look like, which in turn have developed ‘“discursive” constructions of the field’ (2012: 7). This demonstrates that multiple strategic narratives can co-exist, each with its own interpretation and representation of the sector; however, some narratives obtain more ‘purchase’ than others and become influential within the field. It is important to understand whose interests a story is representing, or whether it is supporting a wider, potentially political, agenda.

Who leads? The rise of concern with representativeness in an increasingly diverse society

Recent ‘grey’ and policy literature has raised concerns about whether, within a changing society that recognises increasing diversity and power differentials, leaders within the UK voluntary sector adequately reflect this diversity (both in general and in terms of beneficiary groups). For instance Harries (2016a: 3) highlights ‘gaps’ in leadership development, stating that ‘whilst notions of the “heroic leader” are now considered quaintly old-fashioned, replaced by a recognition that leaders can come from all walks of life, there remains little consensus about how to create an ecosystem that successfully identifies and nurtures leadership talent’. In another report, Harries (2016b) argues for an approach that targets different demographic groups. One example is the so-called ‘millennial’ generation, who, it is argued, approach leadership with very different preconceptions and are ‘looking for a different type of leadership. Not for the stressed-out, burnt-out “heroic” leader, with no time for delegation and succession planning, desperately trying to hold back the tides of change washing over their organisations’ (Harries, 2016b: 5).

Similar concerns were articulated in the influential Marsh Review (2013: 8): leadership support should ‘not just [be] at the level of directors and chief executives, but for aspiring and emerging leaders across all positions and for trustees and volunteers too’. Marsh (2013) argues that too much support has been targeted at those already in established roles rather than encouraging and developing aspiring leaders. One consequence of this focus on those already in positions of power is the reproduction and dissemination of limited conceptions, definitions and experiences of leadership across the voluntary sector. Such perceptions do not acknowledge the range of leaders, or the diversity of organisations, or provide a representative view of voluntary sector leadership. Furthermore, the Marsh Review highlights the underrepresentation of specific demographic groups – women, people from black and minority ethnic communities and disabled people – as (senior) leaders within the voluntary sector. There has been little exploration within the literature as to why this might be the case. Teasdale et al (2011) provide one of the few insights into this underrepresentation, specifically focusing on how gender-based barriers and organisational size can act as constraints to female leadership in social enterprises. This is likely to be an increasingly important theme within voluntary sector leadership debates, and it is important to acknowledge that there are connections to a stream of mainstream leadership literature around identity and a related literature that explores democratic leadership. Although space precludes a detailed discussion of these connections (for an introduction, see Ibarra et al, 2014), these concerns so far highlighted in the policy and practice literature are likely to increase in salience.

The potential of collective accounts for voluntary sector leadership

A key way of exploring a more expansive and inclusive approach to leadership in the voluntary sector is via a number of theories that we group together in this paper under the heading ‘collective leadership’. Our interest here is in exploring the application of theories from the broader leadership field that highlight the plurality of leadership – including shared, distributed, collaborative and relational leadership. These leadership theories are not confined to UK scholarship, they originate from different theoretical traditions and each has a different emphasis. However, here we highlight five characteristics that recur in discussions of collective leadership practice. Collective leadership is:

For the purposes of this paper, we do not unpick the differences between relational, shared, distributed and collaborative leadership, but instead point out the particular relevance of this set of theories to the voluntary sector context. Collective accounts are compelling for a number of reasons, not least that in spite of the prevalence of the narrative of the unique individual in the voluntary sector literature, a shared approach to leadership is embedded in the structure and governance of voluntary organisations. The shared responsibility of trustee boards, and the ambiguity of their relationship with chief executives (Cornforth and Macmillan, 2016), focus attention on interactions between trustees, and between trustees and chief executives and senior staff. Leadership is distributed (Gronn, 2002) between volunteer trustees and employed staff, raising questions about the processes and practices through which people in these roles interact with one another to set the direction of the organisation (Cornforth and Edwards, 1999).

Collective leadership theories hold considerable potential for understanding and researching voluntary sector leadership as a practice that is social, rather than individual (Uhl-Bien, 2006). As Gronn (2002) argues, they shift the focus away from traditional concepts of hierarchical leadership, and point towards a more inclusive and participative practice. And as Grint (2005) points out, these critiques do not negate the essential role played by key leaders, but do acknowledge that there are other factors that come into play. Models of collective leadership ‘relax assumptions that leaders and followers are always distinctively different actors with fundamentally distinct characteristics and behaviours, and [focus] increased attention on the interactive relationship at the core of the leadership process’ (Bligh, 2011: 427). This moves from a view of the passive and compliant follower to a more inclusive viewpoint, and is part of the growing recognition within leadership studies that followership is an integral part of the production of outcomes in a dialectical relationship with leadership. To explore this concept of followership further, it is essential to take into account both the interactions between people and the context in which those interactions take place (Howieson and Hodges, 2017).

What does thinking in terms of ‘collective leadership’ mean for voluntary sector leadership development and research?

What, then, does adopting the lens of collective leadership mean for the ways in which we think about leadership development and the production of resources to enable that development? At the most basic level, collective leadership theories suggest that leadership development opportunities should be opened up to a much broader group of people beyond those individuals with formal leadership roles. Furthermore, they suggest that leadership development opportunities need to engage with the social interactions of everyday organisational life. Rather than extracting individual positional leaders from their context for ‘development’ (Grint and Holt, 2011), leadership development might involve working with whole teams or groups of staff or volunteers. The recognition of the specificities of the voluntary sector context is an important step forward in leadership development thinking, in its own right.

Understanding leadership as an inherently social practice raises issues not only for the mechanisms of leadership development (for example, delivered face to face, online or blended; in the workplace or outside), but also more fundamentally for its content and focus. Carroll and colleagues, for instance, frame leadership development as identity work that engages with issues of power, participation and democracy (Carroll and Levy, 2010; Carroll and Simpson, 2012; Carroll and Smolović Jones, 2017). This approach implies that participants are engaged not simply in acquiring a fixed set of skills and knowledge, but rather in a process through which they together constitute the leadership being developed (Carroll and Smolović Jones, 2017). The practices of leadership development are therefore likely to focus on relational practices, including story-telling and narrative development, questioning and challenge, rather than on individual skills development.

We pose four questions to all interested stakeholders for further reflection, in terms of applying a collective leadership lens to leadership development for voluntary sector organisations:

  • How can access to leadership development for individuals be opened up at all levels of voluntary sector organisations, for those with and without positional leadership roles?

  • How can development opportunities that are embedded in the social interactions that are at the heart of leadership practice be better provided?

  • How might a more inclusive and social approach to leadership development reflect the specific challenges of the current voluntary sector context (for instance, the particular challenges of austerity, the focus on cross-boundary working to tackle complex social problems, and the consequences of Brexit)?

  • How might responsibility be distributed in collective leadership structures and provide capacity to nurture and develop more diverse sources of leadership?

Arguably a more relational, democratic and inclusive approach to leadership development is particularly relevant for the sector in the current social context, characterised by continuing collaboration to address complex public problems.

Furthermore, adopting insights from theories of collective leadership also has implications for framing a research agenda, and for the selection of research methodologies to explore the practice of voluntary organisation leadership empirically. Three issues arise for research design:

  • To understand leadership as a social practice, it is important to observe leadership as it happens in the interactions between people – their actions and conversations. Such observation should not be focused on specific ‘leadership acts’, but rather on everyday practice – the meetings (formal and informal), communications, routines and micro-interactions of organisational and inter-organisational life.

  • As a practice approach is closely intertwined with experience, empirical research should continue to include interviews. These interviews are likely to focus on participants’ retrospective sense-making of the social interactions of organisational life, rather than on their individual actions.

  • To understand leadership as a contextualised practice, voluntary sector researchers also need to understand the ways in which leadership interactions are enabled and constrained by an environment of power relationships, culture and discourses (Raelin, 2016).

It is likely that research that offers substantive insights into leadership practice in voluntary organisations will need to address all three of these issues, and will draw on data collection from different sources. This suggests that ethnographic methodologies will be most appropriate for future research, posing access and time commitment challenges for researchers.

If leadership is viewed as a social process that is enacted by multiple actors across and beyond the organisation, then leadership is best understood by attending to the experiences, interpretations and interactions of those involved (Badaracco, 2001). This has implications for thinking about the ways in which we research leadership in the voluntary sector. It suggests that such research should focus not only on the decision-making actions of individuals, but also on the interpretation and sense-making of those involved, and the relational processes of negotiation between different actors. Grint (2005: 20) recognises that ‘this “negotiated” or “deep” leadership is often overlooked precisely because it remains informal and distributed amongst the collective rather than emanating from a formal and individual leader’. This raises further important questions about how power is shared or moves between individuals at different organisational levels or across organisational boundaries.

Conclusion

In this paper we have argued that academic debate related to leadership in the UK voluntary sector lacks theoretical sophistication and has been limited by its focus on a person-centred account of leaders. It is therefore accurate to suggest that its conceptualisation in this context has so far been ‘embryonic’ (Macmillan and McLaren, 2012). This is unfortunate at a time when there is an appetite from practitioners and policy makers to understand the role and contribution of leadership; and there is pressure on academics to work with other societal stakeholders to demonstrate impact. This brief review highlights that the UK voluntary sector literature has offered limited exploration of leadership processes, focusing instead on the characteristics and skills of individuals in formal leadership positions. Furthermore, media narratives all too often associate the achievements of voluntary sector organisations with the heroic endeavours of extraordinary individuals (a yearning to identify and celebrate such individuals is also apparent in the wider culture), and failure with the character failings of occupants of senior positions. This model is not best equipped to understand UK voluntary sector leadership; and this brief review of a selection of recent developments in the broader leadership literature suggests more productive avenues.

From a policy perspective, the repeated emphasis on the ‘person’ in leadership debates and development practice is problematic because it encourages an elusive search for heroic leaders (or the fostering of such attributes in existing identified ‘leaders’) and entrenches the idea that such individuals can solve all the problems facing an organisation or setting. It is also potentially elitist in its consequences, and offputting for those who are currently ‘followers’ yet could develop into leaders. Finally, it obscures the ways in which leadership can emerge from other sources, and in practice in settings that are more relational and bottom-up. It encourages leaders and the wider range of stakeholders in the voluntary sector to overlook such promising sources of leadership practice. In contrast, we argue that collective approaches challenge the narrative that organisational survival and solutions to complex public problems are dependent on individuals. A policy focus on collective leadership would promote models that disperse and share leadership responsibilities, and provide capacity to nurture and develop more diverse sources of leadership. This would challenge practice that promotes the heroic individual, and offer more bottom-up relational organisations ways of understanding and exploring leadership that resonate with their values.

Finally, collective approaches to leadership offer a process perspective, in which individuals and stakeholders influence one another relationally, share responsibilities and hold one another accountable. This understanding of leadership resonates with the values of many voluntary sector organisations, and reflects structural requirements to share leadership between individuals with different roles and responsibilities. Adopting this approach to leadership development and research would focus attention on how actors interact and influence one another within and beyond the distinctive structure of a voluntary organisation. It would lead to practice-focused leadership development that avoids dependency on individuals, and instead adopts a more inclusive approach to leadership. This resonates with the values of openness and inclusion that are important to many voluntary sector organisations, particularly those that are smaller and community-based and that promote community engagement and accountability, and which rely on a small group of individuals, whose roles and responsibilities within and beyond the organisation are overlapping and ambiguous (Billis and Glennerster, 1998).

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

References

  • Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O. and Weber, T.J. (2009) Leadership: current theories, research, and future directions, Annual Review of Psychology, 60: 42149. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Badaracco, J.L. (2001) We don’t need another hero, Harvard Business Review, 79(8): 1206.

  • Billis, D. and Glennerster, H. (1998) Human services and the voluntary sector, Journal of Social Policy, 27: 7998. doi: 10.1017/S0047279497005175

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bligh, M. (2011) Followership and follower-centred approaches, In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson and M. Uhl-Bien (eds) The Sage handbook of leadership (2nd edn), London: Sage Publications.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bolden, R. (2011) Distributed leadership in organizations: a review of theory and research, International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(3): 25169. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00306.x

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Buckingham, H., Paine, A.E., Alcock, P., Kendall, J. and Macmillan, R. (2014) Who’s speaking for whom? Exploring issues of voluntary sector leadership, leverage and legitimacy, Birmingham: Third Sector Research Centre.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Carroll, B. and Levy, L. (2010) Leadership development as identity construction, Management Communication Quarterly, 24(2): 21131. doi: 10.1177/0893318909358725

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Carroll, B., Levy, L. and Richmond, D. (2008) Leadership as practice: challenging the competency paradigm, Leadership, 4(4): 36379. doi: 10.1177/1742715008095186

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Carroll, B. and Simpson, B. (2012) Capturing sociality in the movement between frames: an illustration from leadership development, Human Relations, 65(10): 1283309. doi: 10.1177/0018726712451185

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Carroll, B. and Smolović Jones, O. (2017) Mapping the aesthetics of leadership development through participant perspectives, Management Learning, 49(2): 187203. doi: 10.1177/1350507617738405

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chambers, C. and Edwards-Stuart, F. (2007) Leadership in the social economy, London: School for Social Entrepreneurs.

  • Clark, J. (2007) Voluntary sector skills survey, London: NCVO.

  • Common Purpose (2017) What is cultural intelligence?, http://commonpurpose.org/knowledge-hub/all-articles/what-is-cultural-intelligence/

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cormack, J. and Stanton, M. (2003) Passionate leadership: The characteristics of outstanding leaders in the voluntary sector, London: Hay Management Group for ACEVO.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cornforth, C. and Edwards, C. (1999) Board roles in the strategic management of non-profit organisations: theory and practice, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 7(4): 34662. doi: 10.1111/1467-8683.00165

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cornforth, C. and Macmillan, R. (2016) Evolution in board chair–CEO relationships: a negotiated order perspective, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(5): 94970. doi: 10.1177/0899764015622705

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Crosby, B. and Bryson, J. (2010) Integrative leadership and the creation and maintenance of cross-sector collaborations, The Leadership Quarterly, 21: 21130. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.01.003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cunliffe, A.L. and Eriksen, M. (2011) Relational leadership, Human Relations, 64(11): 142549. doi: 10.1177/0018726711418388

  • DCMS (Department for Culture, Media & Sport) (2018) Civil society strategy: Building a society that works for everybody, London: Cabinet Office.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Edwards, M. (2011) Emotional intelligence is key to being a good leader. [Online] Available at: https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/emotional-intelligence-key-good-leader/management/article/1073417 [Accessed on 10 September 2018]

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gilchrist, A. and Taylor, M. (2016) The short guide to community development, Bristol: Policy Press.

  • Goleman, D. (1995) Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ, London: Bloomsbury.

  • Grey, C. (2005) A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about studying organisations (2nd edn), London: Sage Publications. 

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Green, H. (2009) State of the Sector Panel Survey: Introduction and Panel Characteristics, London: Cabinet Office.

  • Grint, K. (2005) Leadership: Limits and possibilities, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Grint, K. (2010) Leadership: A very short introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Grint, K. and Holt, C. (2011) Followership in the NHS, London: The King’s Fund.

  • Gronn, P. (2002) Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis, The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4): 42351. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00120-0

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Harries, R. (2016a) Leadership development in the voluntary sector: Learning lessons, London: Clore Social Leadership.

  • Harries, R. (2016b) Leadership development in the voluntary sector: Facing the future, London: Clore Social Leadership.

  • Hodges, J. and Howieson, B. (2017) The challenges of leadership in the voluntary sector, European Management Journal, 35(1): 6577. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2016.12.006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Huxham, C. and Vangen, S. (2000) Leadership in the shaping and implementation of collaboration agendas: how things happen in a (not quite) joined-up world, Academy of Management Journal, 43(6): 115975.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ibarra, H., Wittman, S., Petriglieri, G. and Day, D.V. (2014) Leadership and identity: an examination of three theories and new research identities, In D. Day (ed) The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jacklin-Jarvis, C. (2015) Collaborating across sector boundaries: a story of tensions and dilemmas, Voluntary Sector Review, 6(3): 285302. doi: 10.1332/204080515X14448338369886

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kay, R. (1996) What kind of leadership do voluntary organisations need?, in D. Billis and M. Harries (eds) Voluntary agencies: Challenges of organisation and management, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kirchner, A. (2006) Value-based leadership: a voluntary sector view, International Journal of Leadership in Public Services, 2(4): 303. doi: 10.1108/17479886200600040

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kirchner, A. (2007) Leading leaders: A snapshot into the minds of CEOs, London: ACEVO.

  • Lords Inquiry (2017) Stronger charities for a stronger society, London: House of Lords.

  • Macmillan, R. and McLaren, V. (2012) Voluntary sector leadership: The power of narrative, TSRC working paper 76, Birmingham: Third Sector Research Centre.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Marsh, M. (2013) Dame Mary Marsh review of skills & leadership in the VCSE sector, London: Cabinet Office.

  • Paton, R. and Brewster, R. (2008) Making deeper sense in the midst of great busyness: a study of and with voluntary sector CEOs, paper given at the 37th annual conference of ARNOVA, Philadelphia, November.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pearce, C.L. and Conger, J.A. (eds) (2003) Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Raelin, J.A. (2003) Creating leaderful organizations: How to bring out leadership in everyone, San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

  • Raelin, J.A. (2016) It’s not about the leaders: it’s about the practice of leadership, Organizational Dynamics, 45(2): 12431. doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2016.02.006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rost, J.C. (1993) Leadership for the twenty-first century, Westport, CT: Praeger.

  • Schwabenland, C. (2006) Stories, visions and values in voluntary organisations, Adlershot: Ashgate.

  • Sergi, V., Denis, J.-L. and Langley, A. (2017) Beyond the hero-leader: leadership by collectives, In J. Storey, J. Hartley, J.-L. Denis, P. ‘t Hart and D. Ulrich (eds) The Routledge companion to leadership, New York, NY: Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Teasdale, S., McKay, S., Phillimore, J. and Teasdale, N. (2011) Exploring gender and social entrepreneurship: women’s leadership, employment and participation in the voluntary sector and social enterprises, Voluntary Sector Review, 2(1): 5776. doi: 10.1332/204080511X560620

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Terry, V., Rees, J. and Jacklin-Jarvis, C. (2018) Briefing paper 2: Understanding the leadership development terrain for the UK voluntary sector, Milton Keynes: Centre for Voluntary Sector Leadership.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Uhl-Bien, M. (2006) Relational leadership theory: exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing, The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6): 65476. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wilks, L. (2015) A new model of volunteer leadership: lessons from a local festival, Voluntary Sector Review, 6(2): 193208. doi: 10.1332/204080515X14357513647153

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O. and Weber, T.J. (2009) Leadership: current theories, research, and future directions, Annual Review of Psychology, 60: 42149. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Badaracco, J.L. (2001) We don’t need another hero, Harvard Business Review, 79(8): 1206.

  • Billis, D. and Glennerster, H. (1998) Human services and the voluntary sector, Journal of Social Policy, 27: 7998. doi: 10.1017/S0047279497005175

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bligh, M. (2011) Followership and follower-centred approaches, In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson and M. Uhl-Bien (eds) The Sage handbook of leadership (2nd edn), London: Sage Publications.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bolden, R. (2011) Distributed leadership in organizations: a review of theory and research, International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(3): 25169. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00306.x

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Buckingham, H., Paine, A.E., Alcock, P., Kendall, J. and Macmillan, R. (2014) Who’s speaking for whom? Exploring issues of voluntary sector leadership, leverage and legitimacy, Birmingham: Third Sector Research Centre.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Carroll, B. and Levy, L. (2010) Leadership development as identity construction, Management Communication Quarterly, 24(2): 21131. doi: 10.1177/0893318909358725

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Carroll, B., Levy, L. and Richmond, D. (2008) Leadership as practice: challenging the competency paradigm, Leadership, 4(4): 36379. doi: 10.1177/1742715008095186

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Carroll, B. and Simpson, B. (2012) Capturing sociality in the movement between frames: an illustration from leadership development, Human Relations, 65(10): 1283309. doi: 10.1177/0018726712451185

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Carroll, B. and Smolović Jones, O. (2017) Mapping the aesthetics of leadership development through participant perspectives, Management Learning, 49(2): 187203. doi: 10.1177/1350507617738405

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chambers, C. and Edwards-Stuart, F. (2007) Leadership in the social economy, London: School for Social Entrepreneurs.

  • Clark, J. (2007) Voluntary sector skills survey, London: NCVO.

  • Common Purpose (2017) What is cultural intelligence?, http://commonpurpose.org/knowledge-hub/all-articles/what-is-cultural-intelligence/

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cormack, J. and Stanton, M. (2003) Passionate leadership: The characteristics of outstanding leaders in the voluntary sector, London: Hay Management Group for ACEVO.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cornforth, C. and Edwards, C. (1999) Board roles in the strategic management of non-profit organisations: theory and practice, Corporate Governance: An International Review, 7(4): 34662. doi: 10.1111/1467-8683.00165

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cornforth, C. and Macmillan, R. (2016) Evolution in board chair–CEO relationships: a negotiated order perspective, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(5): 94970. doi: 10.1177/0899764015622705

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Crosby, B. and Bryson, J. (2010) Integrative leadership and the creation and maintenance of cross-sector collaborations, The Leadership Quarterly, 21: 21130. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.01.003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cunliffe, A.L. and Eriksen, M. (2011) Relational leadership, Human Relations, 64(11): 142549. doi: 10.1177/0018726711418388

  • DCMS (Department for Culture, Media & Sport) (2018) Civil society strategy: Building a society that works for everybody, London: Cabinet Office.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Edwards, M. (2011) Emotional intelligence is key to being a good leader. [Online] Available at: https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/emotional-intelligence-key-good-leader/management/article/1073417 [Accessed on 10 September 2018]

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gilchrist, A. and Taylor, M. (2016) The short guide to community development, Bristol: Policy Press.

  • Goleman, D. (1995) Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ, London: Bloomsbury.

  • Grey, C. (2005) A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about studying organisations (2nd edn), London: Sage Publications. 

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Green, H. (2009) State of the Sector Panel Survey: Introduction and Panel Characteristics, London: Cabinet Office.

  • Grint, K. (2005) Leadership: Limits and possibilities, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Grint, K. (2010) Leadership: A very short introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Grint, K. and Holt, C. (2011) Followership in the NHS, London: The King’s Fund.

  • Gronn, P. (2002) Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis, The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4): 42351. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00120-0

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Harries, R. (2016a) Leadership development in the voluntary sector: Learning lessons, London: Clore Social Leadership.

  • Harries, R. (2016b) Leadership development in the voluntary sector: Facing the future, London: Clore Social Leadership.

  • Hodges, J. and Howieson, B. (2017) The challenges of leadership in the voluntary sector, European Management Journal, 35(1): 6577. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2016.12.006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Huxham, C. and Vangen, S. (2000) Leadership in the shaping and implementation of collaboration agendas: how things happen in a (not quite) joined-up world, Academy of Management Journal, 43(6): 115975.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ibarra, H., Wittman, S., Petriglieri, G. and Day, D.V. (2014) Leadership and identity: an examination of three theories and new research identities, In D. Day (ed) The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jacklin-Jarvis, C. (2015) Collaborating across sector boundaries: a story of tensions and dilemmas, Voluntary Sector Review, 6(3): 285302. doi: 10.1332/204080515X14448338369886

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kay, R. (1996) What kind of leadership do voluntary organisations need?, in D. Billis and M. Harries (eds) Voluntary agencies: Challenges of organisation and management, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kirchner, A. (2006) Value-based leadership: a voluntary sector view, International Journal of Leadership in Public Services, 2(4): 303. doi: 10.1108/17479886200600040

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kirchner, A. (2007) Leading leaders: A snapshot into the minds of CEOs, London: ACEVO.

  • Lords Inquiry (2017) Stronger charities for a stronger society, London: House of Lords.

  • Macmillan, R. and McLaren, V. (2012) Voluntary sector leadership: The power of narrative, TSRC working paper 76, Birmingham: Third Sector Research Centre.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Marsh, M. (2013) Dame Mary Marsh review of skills & leadership in the VCSE sector, London: Cabinet Office.

  • Paton, R. and Brewster, R. (2008) Making deeper sense in the midst of great busyness: a study of and with voluntary sector CEOs, paper given at the 37th annual conference of ARNOVA, Philadelphia, November.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pearce, C.L. and Conger, J.A. (eds) (2003) Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Raelin, J.A. (2003) Creating leaderful organizations: How to bring out leadership in everyone, San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

  • Raelin, J.A. (2016) It’s not about the leaders: it’s about the practice of leadership, Organizational Dynamics, 45(2): 12431. doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2016.02.006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rost, J.C. (1993) Leadership for the twenty-first century, Westport, CT: Praeger.

  • Schwabenland, C. (2006) Stories, visions and values in voluntary organisations, Adlershot: Ashgate.

  • Sergi, V., Denis, J.-L. and Langley, A. (2017) Beyond the hero-leader: leadership by collectives, In J. Storey, J. Hartley, J.-L. Denis, P. ‘t Hart and D. Ulrich (eds) The Routledge companion to leadership, New York, NY: Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Teasdale, S., McKay, S., Phillimore, J. and Teasdale, N. (2011) Exploring gender and social entrepreneurship: women’s leadership, employment and participation in the voluntary sector and social enterprises, Voluntary Sector Review, 2(1): 5776. doi: 10.1332/204080511X560620

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Terry, V., Rees, J. and Jacklin-Jarvis, C. (2018) Briefing paper 2: Understanding the leadership development terrain for the UK voluntary sector, Milton Keynes: Centre for Voluntary Sector Leadership.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Uhl-Bien, M. (2006) Relational leadership theory: exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing, The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6): 65476. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wilks, L. (2015) A new model of volunteer leadership: lessons from a local festival, Voluntary Sector Review, 6(2): 193208. doi: 10.1332/204080515X14357513647153

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 1 Institute for Voluntary Action Research, UK
  • | 2 The Open University, UK

Content Metrics

May 2022 onwards Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 67 67 44
Full Text Views 177 177 33
PDF Downloads 87 87 15

Altmetrics

Dimensions