Collaborative leadership in a state of flux –negotiated suitability to welfare collaborations
The field of public sector leadership has grown considerably in the past two decades (Lawler 2008) however the research needs continue to be great and the opportunities, manifold, just as much now as when Van Wart claimed it in his 2003 review. A particular issue, which is not atypical for a study area in full development, is the proliferation of leadership ‘types’. In his more recent review, Van Wart (2013) refers to this as the ‘Balkanization of the field with innumerable aspects of leadership, each with its special and often conflicting terms’ (p. 537), creating a real state of confusion among research users. This article tackles this problem by differentiating between types on grounds of utility; namely, it aims to unravel which type of leadership is most suitable to partnership working in the midst of uncertainty. The paper uses the opportunity to research access to a collaborative public sector setting to explore collaborative leadership in depth. The context is utilised to unravel a utility argument of suitability of one certain type of collaborative leadership over others in a context of acute complexity.
On close examination, the paper reflects on the numerous leadership types presented in the public leadership literature (including ‘collaborative capacity building’, ‘boundary spanning’, ‘institutional entrepreneurship’) and extrapolates from interview data on partnership working how these types apply to public welfare partnerships to ascertain which are likely to be most effective in this context –highly complex client situations, ever changing hence uncertain, highly political and politicised and an area of great inter-professional divisions. Methodologically, the study draws on Allison’s (1971) Multiple Lenses according to which important phenomena must be analysed from a multiplicity of theoretical perspectives if they are to be understood. The theoretical ‘lenses’ employed in this study are of the leadership types in collaborations. The aim is to gain insight into a persistent problem of communication between organisational and professional ‘islands’.
References:
Allison, G. 1971. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston: Little, Brown and Co
Lawler, J. (2008). Individualization and public sector leadership. Public administration, 86(1), 21-34.
Wart, M.V. 2003. ‘Public‐Sector Leadership Theory: An Assessment’, Public Administration Review, 63, 2, 214-228.
Van Wart, M. 2013. ‘Administrative Leadership Theory: A Reassessment After 10 Years’, Public Administration, 91, 3, 521-543.
Collaborative_leadership_negotiated_suitability_IRSPM2016.doc 