Abstract

Any discussion about an increase in inter-agency working particularly within the widerhumanitarian aid and security sectors raise questions about the need for more collaboration. Onekey reason is the synergy required to effectively manage more complex and conflict ridden workenvironments whilst aiming to achieve increasingly difficult organizational objectives. Suchorganizations face greater management complexity, relentless pressure to meet the needs of oftentraumatized populations whilst providing a capable service, and dealing with the ever-increasingrate of situational change. Organizations whether from the not-for profit, public or private sectorsare turning to external collaborations to improve their capabilities and their knowledge base. Thekey concept of absorptive capacity involving the various agencies ability to recognize, learn fromand utilize new knowledge is identified as an important factor to support for example, distributed

SUBSCRIBE

Subscribe to The Journal ofHumanitarian Assistance by Email

RECENT ARTICLES

One step forward, two steps back?Humanitarian Challenges andDilemmas in Crisis Settings

Peace of Mind, Health of Body: Whythe Correlation of Food Security,Physical Health, and MentalWellbeing Holds ImportantImplications for HumanitarianActors

Medical Liability in HumanitarianMissions

BLOGROLL

Feinstein International Center

The Case for Strengthening Protection Frameworks in ‘Other Situations of Violence’

Medical Liability in Humanitarian Missions

Inter-Agency Working and Co-operation:Learning from Collaboration in theHumanitarian and Security Sector Spaceon OCTOBER 30, 2014 · LEAVE A COMMENT · in ROGER DARBY

The Journal of Humanitarian AssistanceFIELD EXPERIENCE AND CURRENT RESEARCH ON HUMANITARIAN ACTION AND POLICY

HOME ABOUT ARTICLES SUBMISSION GUIDELINES ARCHIVES Search

leadership. This exploratory paper builds on extant research and provides a heuristic framework tosupport further research to prompt the need for necessary growth in collaborative working and toaid in the management of the increased complexity and difficult work encountered in hazardouszones by inter-agency organizations.

Key words: humanitarian space, security sector, inter-agency working, collaborative leadership,and knowledge management

 

 

Author:   Roger Darby, PhD

Course Director and Senior Lecturer

Centre for Defence Management & Leadership

Cranfield University, UK

Email: r.darby@cranfield.ac.uk

 

 

I. Introduction

Any discussion about an increase in the complexity of managing inter-agency working particularlywithin the wider humanitarian aid and security sectors raises questions about the need for morecollaboration between agencies (Metcalfe et al., 2012; Kaiser, 2011; Dunning, 2008; Luscher &Lewis, 2008). This paper focuses on this topic for three main reasons. Firstly, this research is timelygiven the increasing number and levels of complexity of international projects in hazardous zonesacross the globe. Further, there has been an on-going often fractious debate in internationalhumanitarian law relating to the distinction between the military domain and the non-military

domain fusing into what has been termed the humanitarian space (HPG, 2010; Bruderlein, 2000).The management of such a ‘space’ requires a mixed range of expertise to support various agenciesworking together effectively; it also requires shared leadership, logistical management and politicalsupport to collectively achieve the necessary objectives. It is argued here that within thehumanitarian aid and security sector some challenging issues are simply too big for one agency orsector to handle alone. Further, it is argued that this increased complexity and the difficult workencountered in hazardous zones by inter-agency organizations prompts the need for a necessarygrowth in collaboration (Buchanan-Smith & Scriven, 2010; van Wijk et. al., 2008; Easterby-Smithet al., 2008; Darby & Williamson, 2012).

Secondly, these issues have been compounded by recent research in the humanitarian sectorhighlighted for example by Buchanan-Smith & Scriven (2010) and Archer & Cameron (2013), aboutthe substantial increase of demands on individual leaders and the call for more collective leadershipwhere skills and responsibilities are more appropriately distributed (Kempster, et al., 2014).Further, research has also emphasized the value of a leadership team or leadership organizationalculture that supports collectivity, participation and collegiality (Hiller et al., 2006; Smillie & Hailey,2001). As an example, recent research into the UN highlights the need for leadership that requires acombination of multiple attributes that are seldom found in one person and supports the notion ofthe development of a leadership team linked to mechanisms of collective accountability(Hochschild, 2010; Featherstone, 2010).

Thirdly, the paucity of research in the humanitarian space, as highlighted by Bolden (2011), Salmon(2004) and Harris et al. (2007), provides grounds for further study, which, it is argued, leadershipliterature has not adequately addressed. Research has also not fully taken into account the role ofcollaborative learning and knowledge management (KM) in influencing the efficacy of leadershipfrom an inter-agency working perspective (Tauxe, 2000). The use of research on collaboration, KMand organizational learning is used here to provide a heuristic framework to present additionalguidance. Additionally, this exploratory paper focuses on examples of inter-agency working withinthe humanitarian aid and security sectors to highlight salient issues and to provide a framework forfurther research.

In practice, reality seems to suggest collaborative leadership is problematic when related to inter-

agency working. Therefore, the core proposition posited here in this paper is that inter-organizational collaboration and knowledge transfer can act as an enabler to support collaborativeleadership and organizational learning in an inter-agency working context.

For the purposes of aiding clarity to the approach taken in this paper, the following definitions ofkey concepts are used:

Collaboration: “… a co­operative, inter­organizational relationship that relies on neithermarket nor hierarchical mechanisms of control but is instead negotiated in an on­goingcommunicative process.”(Lawrence et al., 1999, pp. 78). “…as any joint activity by two ormore organizations that is intended to produce more public value than could be producedwhen the organizations act alone.” (Kaiser, 2011, pp. 2).

Collaborative leadership: “… the leadership required to get results across organizationalboundaries. And that also means the leadership required to get value from the differences(in culture, experience, or skills) that lie in the organizations that sit either side of thatboundary. This requires leaders to be able to: build relationships, handle conflicts andshare control.” (Archer & Cameron, 2013, pp. 10­11).

Knowledge management: “… an emerging set of organizational and operationalprinciples, processes, organizational structures, applications and technologies that helpsknowledge workers dramatically leverage their creativity and ability to deliver businessvalue.” (Lee & Yang, 2000, pp. 83).

II. Inter­Agency Working and Leadership

It is argued in this paper that collaboration and learning can support good management practice toeffectively and efficiently manage increasingly limited resources. For example, such tangibleresources may include finance, technology, plant and machinery; or intangible resources likeknowledge, expertise, reputation, ‘know-how’ and added ‘value’ (Barney, 1991; Spender, 1996;Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2005; Allee, 2000; Andriessen, 2003). A central issue in this dynamic is

the question of leadership in such situations. Notions of what leadership is in the humanitarianspace are affected more and more by situational context and what is happening in conflict, post-conflict, developing or even failed states. Concomitantly, it also raises questions about the nature ofleadership and the effective use of human and social capital in organizations within the aid context(Adler & Kwon, 2002; Nahapirt & Ghoshal, 1998; Hailey, 2006; Barney & Wright, 1998). For it canbe posited that due to these changing circumstances, leadership is not now necessarily purelydetermined by position of authority but rather by an individual’s expertise, the needs of the teamand the capacity to influence peers, at any given time.

III. Leadership and Collaboration in the Humanitarian Space

Traditionally, research in the leadership field has focused on a number of issues that have includedkey variables such as, a definition of what leadership is (Vroom & Jago, 2007); situationalleadership (Northouse, 2007; Hersey, 1985; Hersey & Blanchard, 1984); incorporating theattributes and behaviors of leaders (Likert, 1961; Blake & Mouton, 1964); contingency theorieshighlighting interaction between leaders, followers and changing leadership styles (Fiedler 1964;Fiedler & Garcia, 1987; Kodama, 2006); what constitutes a good leader; and the relationship of theleader to subordinates and followers (Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Yukl, 2002). Further, there hasbeen a concentration on strategic leadership and how leaders impact organizational effectiveness(Ho, 2009; Lakshman, 2007); and to more recent challenging perspectives of traditional leadership(Grint, 2005; Collison, 2005; Benson & Blackman, 2011).

This research addresses the question of leadership from a different perspective but one that isrelevant to inter-agency working in the humanitarian space. It is suggested the nature of theleadership is going through continual change. This is often dictated by the task, which may befundamentally new or different from previous assignments given the particular emerging context.Those different contexts will require a variety of expertise and skills aided by greater flexibility andadaptability in both the individuals and the organizations required to work together. This involvesthe notion of leadership as an activity that can be distributed, shared or practiced in collaborationand has been proffered as an alternative viewpoint to a more traditional approach to leadership(Archer & Cameron, 2013; Harris & Spillane, 2008; Harris et. al., 2007; Grint, 2008, Whitby,2006). This perspective identifies leadership as being distributed among individuals, members of

teams or organizational units who increasingly share responsibilities, roles, functions and activities(Timperley, 2005; Woods, 2004). Although, this concept of distributed leadership is notparticularly new (Pearce, Conger & Locke, 2008) or without contention (Currie & Lockett, 2011), itstill offers an alternative position where leadership is more readily seen to be de-centralized anddistributed amongst individuals and functions within for example, the process of inter-agencyworking.

In addition, this sharing of leadership by design is more contrived due to circumstances dictated bythe situational context and through the interactions of multiple actors (Uhl-Bien, 2006; Bennett etal, 2003; Spillane et. al., 2007). This further challenges the view that leadership is about oneparticular individual who single-handedly develops a vision to which followers to aspire(Timperley, 2005; Yukl, 2002; Badaracco, 2001). It also highlights Gronn’s (2000, 2002) approach,which has raised the issue of disenchantment with purely individualistic notions of leadership andsee leadership more in a holistic way rather than the simple aggregation of individual contributions.He has further argued that distributed leadership is the result of the interactions of individuals andnetworks and, in combination with the expertise available and relationships developed, will affectthe leadership and output that occurs. That involves a multiplicity of leaders with a collection ofunique and disparate skills that enables communities to develop and prosper. To further supportthis approach, more contemporary research has identified the notion of ‘Tri-sector Leadership’which argues that due to the critical challenges that profit and non-profit making organizationsface, they require them to work together to be successful. However, this can only be achieved ifleaders are able to engage and collaborate across all the different sectors (Lovegrove & Thomas,2013).

In practice, the reality seems to suggest distributed leadership is problematic when related to inter-agency working in the humanitarian space (IASC, 2001; 2006). Furthermore, recent researchrelating to the UN has identified the concept of integration as not clearly understood between UNand non-UN staff (Metcalfe, et al., 2011). Further, there appears to be great skepticism amongstmany UN and non-UN staff in humanitarian organizations that such integration can actuallysupport humanitarian aid. The detractors argue that integration distorts the distinction betweenhumanitarian, military and political action, and supports subordinate humanitarian priorities tosatisfy political demands, placing humanitarian action at major risk (Metcalfe et al., 2011). This it is

suggested, compounds a climate of mistrust and a negative and biased approach maintained by thefollowers and detractors of UN integration, and by association, it is argued here, of collaborativeleadership in that milieu.

IV. Examples of Inter­Agency Working in the Humanitarian Space

The examples below further provide an illustration of inter-agency working within thehumanitarian space that highlights the disparate nature of the multi-agencies involved in an aidproject. This includes maintaining national security, capacity building, information exchange andtechnology transfer (Stoddard & Harmer, 2010). However, agencies face barriers to co-operation,for example, when associated with politics, strategies, legal issues and policy frameworks (Bermeo,2004). This is compounded by evidence that suggests, regularly it is the fragmented, disjointedleadership and management practice which often hinders and on occasions, negatively stops theachievement of set objectives (Buchanan-Smith & Scriven, 2010).

Figure 1: An example of an Inter­Agency working context

In Figure 1, the focus on the context of humanitarian aid and security sector support can be used toassess the influence on the practice of collaboration where the functions of the leader could beshared across a range of individuals (or inter­agencies). Further, the interactions of the variousindividuals most important to leadership across a group (i.e. of agencies) enable the project

objectives to be achieved. Given that context, a number of benefits of distributed leadershipresonate with inter-agency working: for example, as an enabler to more effective and faster changemanagement (Harris et al., 2007; Platow, Reid & Andrew, 1998); increased capacity building(Timperley, 2005); encouraging more innovation (Spilane, Halverson & Diamond, 2004); moreeffective decision making (Whitby, 2006) and increased collaboration and the sharing of leadershippractice (Inglis, 2004; Grint, 2005).

Case Study: Kidnapping in Darfur, north Sudan (2010):

Darfur in Western Sudan remains one the world’s worst humanitarian crises with a total of 4.7million people affected by the on­going conflict. Many of these people rely on aid provided bylocal and international organizations. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult for them tooperate. Over the past few years, violence towards aid workers has seen a marked increase withhumanitarian staff becoming the targets of direct attacks. Compound break­ins, car jacking androbberies have become commonplace, perhaps an even more worrying trend though is the recentincrease in the number of relief workers kidnapped and abducted. According to UN statistics,between January and August 2009, a staggering 50 staff from UN or aid organizations werereportedly kidnapped or abducted in Darfur – kidnappers have seized six groups of foreigners inDarfur since June 2010, a trend that was virtually unheard of before.

Case Study: Insecurity in Porte­au­Prince, Haiti (2010):

In Haiti, after the devastating earthquake on January 12th 2010, insecurity and the completebreakdown of law and order in the main city Port­au­Prince hampered rescue efforts. The UNand military recommended, and in some cases enforced curfews and restricted zones in certainareas of the city for mainly personal safety reasons.

Fears have arisen over a dangerous power vacuum in the aftermath of the disaster.With food andmedical supplies delayed, there were widespread reports of mounting desperation and looting.Footage from the US broadcaster CBS showed young men roaming the streets of Port­au­Princearmed with machetes and hunting for food.

The UN humanitarian spokeswoman, said: “People who have not been eating or drinking foralmost 50 hours and are already in a very poor situation, if they see a truck with something … orif they see a supermarket which has collapsed, they just rush to get something to eat.”

The country’s 800­strong police force “are not visible at all”, said Wimhurst, and aid convoyshave been warned to travel only with security escorts. The situation is exacerbated by more than4,500 criminals who fled from two prisons destroyed in the city.

Case Studies: Adapted from Darby & Williamson, 2012.

The case studies above highlight real examples of inter-agencies working in hazardousenvironments. These real examples illustrate the complex array of situations that such agencies andemployees find themselves confronted with. They further show the varieties of leadership required.However, it is argued here, appropriate leadership is dependent for success on the element ofcollaboration between the various agencies working together in unstable and fast changinghazardous environments.

V. Collaborative Working & Knowledge Sharing – Aiding More Effective Leadership?

It is further argued in this paper, that the prism through which leadership has been viewed has notfully taken into account collaboration, KM and organizational learning with the need to link to theoverall inter-organizational learning infrastructure (Crossan & Hulland, 2002). Extant research hasidentified weaknesses in theory building and empirical research on leadership and the limited viewof collaboration and knowledge processes whilst largely ignoring knowledge assets andorganizational context (Von Krogh et al, 2012; Gourlay, 2006). This has been compounded by agreat deal of the research on organizational knowledge creation being focused on leadership as acentral activity undertaken by a restricted few in the more senior positions of an organization.Indeed, initial concepts of leadership in organizational learning were based on a restricted notion ofa ‘dominant coalition’ involving a senior management team which had a significant negative impacton organizational learning (Hambrick & Mason, 1984).

Yet, as alluded to previously, whilst leadership literature has also focused on the behaviors ofleaders, followers, and their interrelationships, it can be argued that leadership can also be viewed

as a catalyst for organizational learning and therefore as an aid to more effective inter-agencyworking (Carmeli et al., 2013, Atwater & Levi, 2011; Nonaka & Toyama, 2005).This supports theproposed core proposition in this paper that inter-organizational knowledge transfer can also act asan enabler to support collaborative leadership in an inter-agency working context. Developing thatlinkage adds to findings from recent research that suggests leadership has a high correlation withall elements of an organizational learning system, which in turn has a high correlation withorganizational performance (Carmeli & Waldman, 2010; Lakshman, 2005; Srivastava, et al, 2006;Zarraga & Bonache, 2003).

In particular, research in the area of KM and collaborative learning has provided a usefulframework for assessing the relationship between leadership, collaboration and inter-agencyworking (Park & Ungerson, 2001; Lawrence et al., 1999). More specifically, research that hasstudied inter-organizational collaborations in which learning is an explicit objective providesinsight into how this could be used to support collaborative leadership in an inter-agency context.Building on applied research undertaken by the KM Forum at Henley Business School (2009) andVan Winkelen, (2010), which addressed the issue of inter-organizational collaboration as the unit ofanalysis, the research focused on the individual’s perceptions of the value derived, their own roleand activities, and the dynamics of the collaboration. Using an in-depth qualitative study oflearning-based inter-organizational case study organizations from the private, public and non-profit sectors, relevant findings highlighted that multiple forms of value are evident whencollaboration is undertaken including, individual capacity building, operational value, affirmation,reputation and relationship building and learning how to collaborate more effectively.

KM shares common ground with organizational learning in recognizing the importance ofknowledge to the success of the organization (or the successful management of inter­agencyprojects). This is supported by previous empirical research which show that an organization maysignificantly improve its knowledge and capabilities (including leadership skills) by leveraging theskills of individuals both from an inter- and intra-organizational perspective; and the importance ofknowledge transfer mechanisms to utilize the learning from the collaboration (Easterby-Smith et al,2008). However, learning in organizations as a consequence of individual learning and knowledgetransfer in the overall learning network is noted as a difficult challenge.

Figure 3 below provides a useful framework drawn from further research findings which highlightthe importance of inter-organizational transfer mechanisms to effectively use the learning from thecollaboration (i.e. inter­agency working), linked to the roles individuals perform in transferringthe knowledge (which may include a leadership role).

Figure 3: Factors influencing inter­organizational knowledge transfer

(Adapted from: Easterby­Smith et al. 2008)

What is of particular interest for this research is the ‘Inter­organizational dynamic’ variables, asfurther research has also shown the barriers to the effectiveness of knowledge transfer and thecomplexities involving various, diverse boundaries, culture and divergent processes are clearlyapparent in many inter-agency working situations (Holmqvst, 2004; Szulanski, 1996). Morespecifically, Currie and Lockett (2011) and others, have further contended that inter-organizationalknowledge transfer experienced in inter-agency working is significantly affected by four factorswhich support the findings of Easterby-Smith et al., (2008) identified in Fig. 3: power relations(Gosling et al., 2009); trust and risk (Ko et al., 2005); structures and mechanisms (Hagedoorn &Narula,1996) and social ties (Bell & Zaheer, 2007). The model has been adapted in this research to

add a fifth important variable that of collaborative leadership (Archer & Cameron, 2013) to enableeffective knowledge transfer.

The relevance of the research undertaken by the KM Forum (2009) offered a dual-track approachwhich firstly, emphasized the importance of intra-organizational knowledge transfer mechanismsto exploit the learning from the collaboration in conjunction with the role individuals’ perform intransferring knowledge. Secondly, it also highlighted a ‘collaborative space’ which provides a usefulframework for this research and encourages a more context-based approach on how forms ofcollaborative leadership interact together within a particular ‘hybrid configuration of practice’(Gronn, 2009; 2010), which is alluded to in Figures 1 and 2. This is supported by von Krogh et al.,(2012) who draw attention to the importance of the ‘intersection’ between distributed leadershipand centralized leadership when examining leadership in organizational knowledge creation whichis seen as dynamic, dependent of individual contributions, and subject to providence (Nonaka &von Krogh, 2009).

Further research by Benson & Blackman (2011) can be used to build on the work of Easterby-Smithet al., (2008) and the KM Forum (2009), which looked at shared leadership in a particularcommercial inter-agency working context to gain more insight into the management, leadershipand stakeholder behaviors within an organization. It involved participant observation, semi-structured interviews and documentary analysis of company accounts, briefing documents andcompany websites using a 5-year longitudinal case study approach. Relevant themes that emergedincluded: a shared vision or purpose (Grint, 2005); appropriate contexts and structures (Whitby,2006); managed, effective relationships (Timperley, 2005); the appropriate blend of skills (Grint,2005); and trust (Storey, 2004). All of which resonate with Easterby-Smith et al., (2008) findingsparticularly in relation to inter-organizational dynamic factors influencing inter-organizationalknowledge transfer.

Further, in relation to organizational response, it is argued that a salient issue also to be notedrelates to learning in organizations and the necessity to recognize the value of ‘absorptive capacity’– the ability to recognize the value of new knowledge and to assimilate and use that knowledge(Zahra & George, 2002; Lane et al., 2001). This can be exemplifies by organizations identifying andusing collaborative leadership competencies in an inter-agency working context. For it can be

argued, absorptive capacity and inter-organizational knowledge transfer are interrelated and thatan organization which is good at absorbing external knowledge should be good as well at diffusingthe knowledge within in own boundaries (Holmqvist, 2004). However, a further challenge can behighlighted with regards to organizations that have also been able to both absorb and diffuseknowledge outside of their boundaries in, for example, an inter-agency working context.

VI. Discussion and Conclusion

The focus on the nascent humanitarian space was identified as a timely area for further study,particularly given the contemporary global context involving evidence of states in increased fluxand transition. As a corollary, it was argued that this necessitates more effective collaborativeworking between different agencies to meet ever more challenging humanitarian aid and securityneeds across the troubled regions of the world. This exploratory paper has highlighted a growingincrease in inter-agency working which raises questions about the need for more collaboration andsynergy between agencies to effectively manage more complex and conflict ridden workenvironments. More specifically, it has highlighted the challenging issue of managing collaborationand learning to support the role of collaborative leadership in an inter-agency working environmentwithin the humanitarian space.

This study focuses on the issue of absorptive capacity and for organizations (i.e. agencies) torecognize the value of new knowledge and to assimilate and use the knowledge more effectivelyboth inter and intra-organizationally. This draws attention to considering knowledge that resides inindividuals who work within an inter-agency context, as a key organizational asset that needs to beutilized more effectively, as for example, in the area of collaborative leadership. Previous researchhas focused on how leadership impacts knowledge creation in an organization. However, this paperhas provided a different perspective and has drawn attention to the need for further discussionabout involving the role of learning from collaboration between various agencies to enablecollaborative leadership in an inter-agency context. Furthermore, it also requires shared leadershipto play a key pivotal role to enable effective inter-agency collaboration. However, it was shown inpractice, evidence suggests collaborative leadership is problematic in the inter-agency context andtherefore provides a rich area for much needed further research.

This paper has also drawn attention to the need to move away from one dominant description ofleadership and give more consideration to collective forms of leadership, particularly whenrequired in perilous environments. It provided typical examples in Fig. 2 where disparate agenciesrequire a multiplicity of knowledge, skills and participation to meet collective objectives.Concomitantly, research findings were shown to support the critical links between leadership,organizational learning, KM, strategy and performance and added support for further researchwithin this area.

However, one thorny problem remains which is the question of an understanding of collaborativeleadership. This lack of clarity of the term may present an ongoing research problem as well as theontological status of leadership itself. This includes shared leadership apparently caught betweenindividuals in preference to a relational ontology (Bolden, 2011; Carson et al., 2007). Indeed, thequestion can be posed as to whether collaborative leadership in practice is still very much anaspiration?

This lends support for further critical analysis of a clearer definition of collaborative leadership.Extant literature on shared leadership tends to be largely dominated by descriptive and normativerather than critical perspectives. Building on extant research, the inter section between the factorsencouraging a more context-based approach on how collaborative leadership interacts and isinfluenced by particular ‘hybrid configurations of practice’ (Gronn, 2009; 2010) and illustrated inFig. 1; with ‘inter-organizational dynamics’ influencing knowledge transfer (Easterby-Smith et al.,2008) to support the development of a ‘collaborative space’ (KM Forum, 2009; van Winkelen,2010), provides a relevant area for further research into how collaborative learning and KM canenable collaborative leadership in an inter-agency context, particularly within the humanitarianspace.

Figure 4 below provides a heuristic framework adapted from extant research to support a wayforward for future study. Overall, a key focus relates to the concept of absorptive capacity (Zahra &George, 2002) and the capability of organizations to identify, learn from and utilize valuableknowledge, to support the role of shared leadership within the inter-agency context. It encapsulatesthe inter­organizational contextual factors (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008) including the motivationfor organizations to participate in collaborations and the need to gain or share further expertise,

which is vitally important when working in dangerous environments. It covers individualknowledge sharing behaviors (Truch, 2004)to assess how individuals (i.e. leaders) see their ownrole in collaborations and to ascertain their own style in collaborative activity to support distributedleadership. And it addresses the issue of organizational responses (Knight & Pye, 2005) in relationto possible systemic failings in knowledge transfer back into and between organizations particularlyin relation to examples of learning from collaborative leadership in the field.

Figure 4: Factors including collaborative leadership influencing inter­organizational knowledgetransfer

This exploratory paper has raised the issue of the need to rethink the way organizations within thehumanitarian space manage their organizational learning structure and systems morecollaboratively. The outcome of which is to support the necessary role of collaborative leadership tomeet increasingly complex and diverse objectives within the sector. Such shared knowledge oncollaborative leadership can be seen as a means to leverage knowledge through organizationallearning. It is argued, organizational learning embraces both cognition and action and through theprocess of leadership, sharing. Such sharing of knowledge is valuable both to the individual and theorganization but requires appropriate resourcing and a long-term management approach. Further,the need for alignment between an organization and its rapidly changing contextual environment is

a dynamic process and places more emphasis on the quality and central role of leadership. Thissuggests encompassing a much more eclectic approach to managing increasingly diverse andcomplex aid problems in the humanitarian space in the future.

The message to agencies working in the humanitarian space seems to chime:

“Learn to collaborate, collaborate to learn… collaborate and learn to share leadership”.

 

References:Adler, P., & Kwon, S. (2002) ‘Social Capital: Prospects of a New Concept’. Academy of ManagementReview. Jan., Vol. 27, no.1, pp. 17-40.

Allee, V. (2000) “The value evolution: addressing larger implications of an intellectual capital andintangibles perspective”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 17-32.

Andriessen, D. (2003) “IC Valuation and Measurement – Why and How?” paper for the PMA ICResearch Symposium, October 2003. Cranfield School of Management. Retrieved fromwww.weightlesswealth.com.

Archer, D., & Cameron, A. (2013) Collaborative Leadership. Building relationships, handlingconflicts & sharing control. Routledge. London.

Badaracco, J. (2001) We don’t need another hero. Harvard Business Review, 79(8), pp. 120-26.

Barney, J. (1991) ‘Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage ‘. Journal of Management,Vol 17, No 1, pp99-120.

Barney, J. and Wright, P. (1998) On becoming a strategic partner: The role of human resources ingaining competitive advantage. Human Resource Management, Vol. 37 (1), pp. 31-46.

Bell, G. and Zaheer, A. (2007) ‘Geography, networks and knowledge flow’. Organization Science, 18,

pp. 955-72.

Bennett, N., Wise, C., Woods, P. and Harvey, J. (2003) Distributed Leadership. NottinghamNational College of School Leadership.

Benson, A. and Blackman, D. (2011) ‘To distribute leadership or not? A lesson from the islands.’Tourism Management, 32, pp. 1141-49.

Bermeo, N. (2004) The Merits of Federalism. MD. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Blake, R. R. and Mouton, J. S. (1964) The Managerial Grid, Houston TX.: Gulf

Bolden, R. (2011) Distributed Leadership in Organizations: A Review of Theory and Research.International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 13, pp. 251-269.

Bruderlein, C. (2000) ‘Towards a New Strategic Approach to Humanitarian Protection and the Useof Protected Areas, 2. United Nations (OCHA).

Buchanan-Smith, M. and Scriven, K. (2010) Leadership in Action: Leading effectively inhumanitarian operations. ALNAP Study, ODI, available at: www.alnap.org.

Carmeli, A., Gelbard, R., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2013) Leadership, Creative Problem-SolvingCapacity, and Creative Performance: The Importance of Knowledge Sharing. Human ResourceManagement, Jan.-Feb., Vol. 52, No 1, pp. 95-122.

Carmeli, A., Atwater, L., & Levi, A. (2011) Leadership, ‘How leadership enhances employees’knowledge sharing: the intervening roles of relational and organizational identification.’ Journal ofTechnology Transfer. 36, pp. 257-74.

Carmeli, A., & Waldman, D. (2010) ‘Leadership, behavioral context, and the performance of workgroups in knowledge-intensive setting.’ Journal of Technology Transfer. 35, 4, pp. 384-400.

Carson, J., Terluk, P., & Marrone, J. (2007) ‘Shared leadership in teams: An investigation ofantecedent conditions and performance.’ Academy of Management, Vol. 50, 5, pp. 1217-34.

Collinson, D. (2005) Dialectics of Leadership, Human Relations, 58, pp. 1419-42.

Conger, J. and Kanungo, R. (1998) Charismatic Leadership in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA,Sage.

Crossan, M. and Hulland, J. (2002) ‘’Leaveraging knowledge through leadership of organizationallearning’, in Choo, C. and Bontis, N (eds) The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital andOrganizational Knowledge, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Currie, G. and Lockett, A. (2011) Distributing Leadership in Health and Social Care: Concertive,Conjoint or Collective? International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 13, pp. 286-300.

Darby, R. & Williamson, C. (2012) ‘Challenges to International Human Resource Management:                                    The management of employee risk in the humanitarian aid and securitysectors’. International Journal             of Human Resource Development and Management, Vol. 13,3, pp. 159-86.        

Dunning, J. (2008) Location and multinational enterprise: a neglected factor? Journal ofInternational Management, 40, pp. 5-19.

Easterby-Smith, M., Lyles, M. A. and Tsang, E. W. K. (2008) “Inter-organizational knowledgetransfer: current themes and future prospects”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp.677-690, pp. 319-31.

Featherstone, A. (2010) ‘Fit For the Future? Strengthening the leadership pillar of humanitarianreform, ‘ Geneva: The NGO and Humanitarian Reform Project, available at: www.icva.ch.

Fiedler, F. (1964) ‘A contingency model of leadership effectiveness’. In Berkowitz, L. (ed), Advancesin Experimental Social Psychology, New York: Academic Press, 1, pp. 149-90.

Fiedler, F, and Garcia, J. (1987) New Approaches to Effective Leadership: Cognitive Resources andOrganizational Performance, New York, John Wiley & Sons.

Gosling, J., Bolden, R. and Petrov, G. (2009) Distributed leadership in higher education: what doesit achieve? Leadership, 28, pp. 317-338.

Grint, K. (2005) Leadership ltd: white elephant to wheelwright, Ivey Business Journal 1-4,January/February.

Grint, K. (2008) Problems, problems, problems: the social construction of leadership, HumanRelations, 58(11), pp. 1467-94.

Gourlay, S. (2006) ‘Conceptualizing knowledge creation: a critique of Nonaka’s theory’. Jorunal ofManagement Studies, 43, pp. 1415-36.

Gronn, P. (2000) Distributed properties: a new architecture for leadership, EducationalManagement Administration and Leadership, 28(3), pp. 317-38.

Gronn, P. (2002) Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 13, pp. 423-51.

Gronn, P. (2009) Leadership configurations. Leadership, 5, pp. 381-94.

Gronn, P. (2010) Hybrid configurations of leadership, in Brymon, A., Collinson, D., Grint, K.,Jackson, B. and Uhl-Bein, M. (eds), Sage handbook of Leadership, London, Sage, pp. 435-52.

Hagedoorn, J. and Narula, R. (1996) ‘Choosing organizational modes of strategic technologypartnering: international and sectoral differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 27,pp. 265-84.

Hailey, J. (2006) ‘NGO Leadership and Development: A Review of the Literature, INTRAC PraxisPaper 10, Oxford, INTRAC.

Hambrick, D. and Mason, P. (1984) Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its topmanagers. Academy of Management Review, 9, pp. 193-206.

Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., and Hopkins, D. (2007) Distributed leadershipand organisational change; reviewing the evidence, Journal of Educational Change, 8, pp. 337-47.-summary pdf.

Harris, A. and Spillane, J. (2008) Distributed leadership through the looking glass. ManagementEducation, 22(1), pp. 31-34.

Hersey, P.(1985) The Situational Leader. New York, Warner Books.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1984). Management of organizational behavior (4th ed.).Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Hochschild, F. (2010) ‘In and Above Conflict. A Study on Leadership in the United Nations.’Geneva: Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue.

Holmqvist, M. (2004) ‘Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within andbetween organizations: an empirical study of product development’, Organization Science, Vol. 15,No 1, pp. 70-81.

HPG (2010) Humanitarian Space: Concept, Definitions and Uses. HPG Roundtable MeetingSummary. Available on http://www.odi.uk/events/documents/2655-meeting.

Ho, C.-T (2009) ‘The relationship between knowledge management enablers and performance’.Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109, pp. 98-117.

Inglis, L. (2004) Alternatives to the ‘Heroic’ leader: an investigation of distributed leadership innon-profit organizations. Department of Management Working Paper Series, Monash University.

Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) (2001) Working Group ‘Use of Military or Armed Escortsfor Humanitarian Convoys: Discussion Paper and Non-Binding Guidelines’, WHO, 14 September.

Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) (2006) ‘Saving Lives Together, A Framework forimproving Security Arrangements among IGO’s, NGO’s and the UN in the field’, November.

Kaiser, E. (2011) ‘The language of collaboration: Dialogue and identity in teacher professionaldevelopment.’ Improving Schools. 14. pp. 104-16.

Kempster, S., Higgs, M. & Wuerz, T. (2014) ‘Pilots for change: exploring organizational changethrough distributed leadership’. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, Vol. 35, No 2,pp. 152-67.

KM Forum Report (2009) “Deriving Value from Inter-Organizational Learning Collaborations”,Henley KM Forum, available at: www. henley.reading.ac.uk/kmforum.

Knight, L. and Pye, A. (2005) “Network learning: an empirically derived model of learning bygroups of organizations”, Human Relations, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 369-392.

Ko, D., Kirsch, L. and King, W. (2005) ‘Antecedents for knowledge transfer from consultants toclients in enterprise system implementations’. MIS Quarterly, 29, pp. 59-85.

Kodama, M. (2006) ‘New knowledge creation through leadership-based strategic communities:case studies in Japan’. Systems Research and Behavioural Science, 23, pp. 21-38.

Laksham, C. (2007) ‘Organizational knowledge leadership: a grounded theory approach’.Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 28, pp. 51-75.

Laksham, C. (2005) ‘Top Executive Knowledge Leadership: Managing knowledge to lead change inGeneral Electic’. Jornal of Change Management. Vol. 5, 4, pp. 429-46.

Lane, P., Salk, J. & Lyles, M. (2001) ‘Absorptive Capacity, learning and performance ininternational joint ventures.’ Strategic Management Journal. Vol. 22, pp. 1139-61.

Lawrence, T., Phillips, N. and Hardy, C. (1999) ‘Watching whale watching. Exploring the discursivefoundation of collaborative relationships’, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, Vol. 35, No 4,pp. 479-502,

Lee, C.C. and Yang, J. (2000) Knowledge value chain. Journal of Management Development,Vol.19. No. 9. Likert, R. (1961).  New Patterns of Management, pp. 166-169.

Lovegrove, N. & Thomas, M. (2013) ‘Triple-Strength Leadership’. Harvard Business Review.September 2013.

Luscher, L. and Lewis, M. (2008) Organization al change and managerial sensemaking: workingthrough paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51, pp. 221-40.

Metcalfe, V., Giffen, A., and Elhawary, S. (2011) UN Integration and the Humanitarian Space. HPG

Report,

Northouse, P. (2007) Leadership: Theory and Practice. (4th Edn.), London. Sage.

Park, S., and Ungson, G. (2001) ‘Interfirm rivalry and managerial complexity’, OrganizationStudies, Vol. 12, No 1, pp. 37-53.

Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998) ‘Social capital, intellectual capital and organizationaladvantage’, Academy of Management Review, Vol 40, No 3, pp 40-54.

Nonaka, I. and Von Grogh (2009) ‘Tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: controversy andadvancement in organizational knowledge creation theory’. Organization Science, 20, pp. 635-52.

Pearce, C.L., Conger, J.A. & Locke, E.A. (2008), “Shared leadership theory”, The LeadershipQuarterly, Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 622-628.

Pearce, C.L., Manz, C.C. & Sims J, H.P. (2008), “The roles of vertical and shared leadership in theenactment of executive corruption: Implications for research and practice”, The LeadershipQuarterly, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 353-359.

Platow, M., Reid, S. and Andrew, S. (1998) Leadership endorsement: the role of distributive andprocedural behavior in interpersonal and intergroup contexts. Group Processes and IntergroupRelations, 1 (1), pp 35-47.

Salaman, G. (2004) Competences of managers, competences of leaders. In J.Storey (ed) Leadershipin organizations: Current issues and key trends. London, Routledge.

Smillie, I. and Hailey, J. (2001) Managing for Change: Leadership Strategy and Management inAsian NGOs. London, Earthscan.

Spender, J. (1996) ‘Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm’, Journal ofKnowledge Management, Vol. 17, Winter Special Issue, pp. 45-62.

Spillane, J.,Camburn, E. and Pareja, A. (2007) Taking a distributed perspective to the principal’swork day. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6, pp. 103-125.

Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2004) ‘Towards a theory of leadership practice: adistributed perspective.’ Journal of Curriculum Studies. Vol. 36, 1, pp. 3-34.

Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. and Locke, E. (2006) ‘Empowering leadership in management teams:effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy and performance’. Academy of Management Journal, 49, pp.1239-51.

Stoddard, A., and Harmer, A. (2010) Supporting the Security for Humanitarian Action: a Reviewof Critical Issues for the Humanitarian Community. Commissioned by the Conveners of the

Montreux 10th Convention.

Storey, J. (2004) Changing theories of leadership and leadership development. In J. Storey(ed)Leadership in organizations: Current issues and key trends. London. Routledge.

Szulanski, G. (1996) ‘Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm. Strategic Management, 17, Winter Special Issue, pp. 27-43.

Taux, J-D. (2000) ‘The IRC and civil-military co-operation in situations of armed conflict’, Rose-Roth Seminar, Montreux, 2 March.

Timperley, H. (2005) Distributed leadership: developing theory from practice. Journal ofCurriculum Studies, 37(4), pp. 395-420.

Truch, A. (2004) An Exploration of Knowledge Sharing Behaviours in Organizations and its link toPersonality. Knowledge Management Forum, Henley, Henley Management College.

Uhl-Bien, M. (2006) Relational leadership theory: exploring the social processes of leadership andorganizing. Leadership Quarterly, 17, pp 654-676.

Van Wijk, R., Jansen, J., and Lyles, M. (2008) ‘Inter-and intra organizational knowledge transfer: ameta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and consequences’, Journal of ManagementStudies, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp. 830-53.

Van Winkelen, C. (2010) ‘Deriving value from inter-organizational learning collaborations’. The

If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!

Learning Organization, Vol, 17, No. 1, pp. 8-23.

Von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I. and Rechsteiner, L. (2012)’ Leadership in Organizational KnowledgeCreation: A Review and Framework’ in Journal of Management Studies, 49:1, pp. 240-77.

Vroom, V.H. & Jago, A.G. (2007).  The role of situation in leadership.  American Psychologist, 62,pp. 17-24.

Whitby, G. (2006) Distributive leadership as an emerging concept. Australian Centre forLeadership, available at: www.uow.edu.au/edu/research.

Woods, P. (2004) Variability and dualities in distributed leadership: findings from a systematicliterature review. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 32, pp. 439-57.

Yukl, G. (2002) Leadership in organisations. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Zahra, S. and George, G. (2002) ‘Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualisation, and extension’.Academy of Management Review, 27, pp. 185-203.

Zararaga, C. and Bonache, J. (2003) ‘Assessing the team environment for knowledge sharing: anempirical analysis’. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, pp. 1227-45.

Tagged with: collaborative leadership • humanitarian space • inter­agency working • knowledge management • security sector

 

Leave a ReplyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

POST COMMENT

Email *

Website

Comment

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del

datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

The Journal ofHumanitarianAssistance

PAGES

HomeArticlesAboutSubmission GuidelinesArchivesMasthead

THE LATEST

One step forward, twosteps back? HumanitarianChallenges and Dilemmasin Crisis SettingsABSTRACT: With the end of theCold War, both the conceptand […]

MORE

Thanks for dropping by!Feel free to join thediscussion by leavingcomments, and stayupdated by subscribing tothe RSS feed.

© 2012 The Journal ofHumanitarian Assistance