No 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.

This article explores collaboration between voluntary and public sectors through the lens of theories that surface the tensions of inter-organisational collaboration. These theories identify the tensions that actors experience, the inherent tensions that underlie these experiences, and the ways in which actors manage these tensions. Drawing on a study of children's services in the United Kingdom, the article identifies three inter-related tensions experienced by voluntary sector participants – tensions between agency and dependency, values and pragmatism, and distinctiveness and incorporation. While these can be seen to relate to the inherent unity/diversity tension identified in the literature (Ospina and Saz-Carranza, 2010), the article argues that they also relate to inter-organisational context, and more specifically, to the power asymmetry between sectors.

The capacity of public sector of co‐creating with other stakeholders is challenged by the increasing presence of disruptive turbulent events, such as the COVID‐19. At this regard, robustness has been identified as a suitable response to deal with this kind of events. Through a systematic literature review, we analyzed how public sector organizations have co‐created with other actors during the COVID‐19 and what have been the contribution of robust governance strategies. Our findings point firstly to the empirical validity of the robustness concept, providing evidence of the extensive use of robust governance strategies into the co‐creation processes. Second, we identified a configurational approach to robustness, with governments co‐creating by simultaneously employing several robust strategies. Thirdly, we observed a more active involvement of societal stakeholders, with emergence of proto‐institutions and potential threats to the political system.

This article presents empirical findings about the distinctiveness of smaller voluntary sector organisations (VSOs) involved in welfare service provision, based on in-depth, qualitative case study research. We identify a series of organisational features and practices which can mean that smaller VSOs are distinctive from larger organisations. These include how they are governed and managed, their approach to their work, and their position relative to other providers. To explain our findings, we draw on the concept of stakeholder ambiguity. This idea was posited by Billis and Glennerster (1998) and is commonly cited in relation to distinctiveness. We identified several manifestations of stakeholder ambiguity and confirm the concept’s explanatory importance, although we argue that our understanding of distinctiveness is enhanced when stakeholder ambiguity is considered alongside other closely related features, such as being embedded in a local geographic community and informal familial care-based organisational cultures. Our findings also highlight the fragility of smaller VSOs. We argue that this combination of distinctiveness and fragility creates a tension for social policy makers, many of whom recognise the value of smaller VSOs and the risks that they face but must weigh this against a requirement to allocate resources for statutory services as effectively as possible.