The voluntary sector is quite broad and therefore I do not believe there is a one-size-fits all model. The leader must express passion for the vision, mission and values of the organisation. Some organisations seem to require the charismatic individual who fronts the organisation whilst others prefer a more collegiate approach.

I would like to present two 'leaders' that I have worked with;

A - Valued for his/her intelligence, knowledge of the specialist subject, knowledge of the sector, passion for delivering the vision and mission of the organisation. Encourages team input and discussion, doesn't make snap decisions or react hastily to 'crisis'. Looks like you and me, treats others as equals and doesn't sit comfortably as a 'leader'.

B - Makes decisions and takes bold steps. Has specialist knowledge of the sector not necessarily the subject. Doesn't necessarily involve team in initial conversations but is constantly moving forward and taking action. Looks like you and me, leads comfortably and with authority.

There are pros and cons to both obviously - 'A' inspires in certain areas but may be seen to lack authority and may seem indecisive. 'B' is valued for driving forward and taking action but may be viewed as dictatorial in approach.

A little from 'A' and 'B' is required for effective performance though in my experience the louder personality tends to dominate and become 'big chief'.

I would say we value leaders who take an active interest in the work and welfare of their team; but also don't micromanage, who focus on empowering people to achieve their own goals and so develop themselves. People talk positively about these kinds of behaviours.

I believe we value leaders that who we know have a passion for the organisation. Leaders that can increase the membership and revenue streams or the organisation by promoting and publicising the organisation are also valued particularly by bigger organisations. These leaders are confident charismatic leaders that have persuasive characteristics. Having a real passion for the organisation is a must although it can be a problem if this passion clouds judgments of difficult decisions. Having very charismatic and persuasive leaders in a voluntary organisation can be bad if there is no one else in the organisation that is able to offer other views or "stand up" to that individual. This is when a much more collaborative approach to leadership is required.

I think the point in the reading about Camila Batmanghelidjh living modestly captures the hearts of individuals, funders and governments because running a business in the third sector is seen as a compassionate and benevolent act driven by an emotional response. 

The principle of business, whether not for- or for profit, are relatively similar -- to increase, grow, improve ones services, whatever they may be. Of course, this is a very simplistic view that doesn't pay notice to the use of profits, role of directors etc. and other factors.  However, if we look at the etymology of the word 'charity' we find works such as 'compassion', 'unconditional love' and 'generous' being used. So from this, I'd argue that charitable businesses are set apart from other businesses on a personal emotional level. 

Batmanghelidjh's lifestyle confirms this saintly act and these characteristics are desirable in charity sector leaders. If she was to live on the salary (and bonuses!) awarded for other non-charitable business leaders/CEOs she would be lambasted and it would be seen as unethical. Working on a small budget is the norm for the charitable sector - is this because of the emotional connection? That doing a good deed shouldn't be a job but a mission or a life-cause? I believe leadership roles often reflect this, as embodied in Batmanghelidjh. To be modest and self-sacrificing is desirable. 

Yet (and quite rightly in my opinion!) the interview video with Chief Exec Christine Pearce talks openly about her clear work-life balance when she talks about her time away on holiday. Perhaps Batmanghelidjh made a trap for herself by becoming such a strong figurehead for the charity. Pearce's approach seems to be about building the charity as a brand, spread across the 'leaders' in the company, including the service users. 

Having worked in financial services before moving into the voluntary sector, I've noticed very different leadership styles displayed at all levels - with high performance and efficiency valued in professional services while inspirational values and interpersonal qualities valued more in the third sector.  However at their core, what those in either sector want from a leader is the above - ultimately someone who is effective in their role.

The words and thoughts that come to mind from my personal experience of leaders is that within the voluntary sector there are some different traits considered as being essential, opposed to those considered valuable in the private sector. There are also some very similar traits. The things that came to mind for me are 'strength, compassion, opinionated, forceful, persuasive, passionate'. They are also invariable opinionated and a good public speaker.  Compassion is certainly not something I think people consider of importance in the private sector.

In addition I notice that working in the charitable sector the majority of senior people and leaders I meet are women, whereas in the private sector the majority of senior figures and business leaders I worked for or came across were men. Whilst I am aware being female is perhaps not something you can consider a characteristic, I wonder of there is such a thing as female leadership characteristics and whether they are considered more acceptable or desirable in the voluntary sector?

Thanks, Stacey

Skills in inspiring or at least persuading others to co-operate, support, endorse, donate are in high demand. For that the leader needs to be an excellent communicator of the cause, but also have a through grasp of realistic and innovative ways to advance the cause. So being a ‘True Believer’ is not enough, the leader also has to have a Plan. Persuading others means not only communicating the Cause and the Plan, but making others feel good about themselves being part of this Plan.

It is quite similar to the skills of a political or religious leader in that beliefs and values are prominent, although the potential supporters are not expected to ‘convert’, join the party etc. Just donate, or offer other intangible ‘goods’ to enable the charity to continue its manifestly good work.

However even the best persuader/fundraiser won’t get far unless they ensure the funds are well spent and the donors retained, although the skills needed to accomplish this are more readily delegated to a management team. So the leader also has to successfully work with a management team who will want to exercise some control over their charismatic figure. That takes negotiation skills, knowing how far you can push it.

For good or ill? I think it has to be a mixture. Virtually all charities need to raise money (excluding those that exist to dispense funds from a foundation), and it is the unique feature of charities that raising the income is an exercise in persuasion. That makes charity leaders different from entrepreneurs and different from government-funded agencies. The persuasive skillset employed will depend on the target audience – raising funds from oil companies is different from parents of primary school children. So I guess it is necessary, but has a troublesome side in that we, the public, agree to palm off our social problems and frustrations onto someone else, often without asking too many questions. We are moved by the sentimental advert, or can’t think of a suitable reply to the kid on the doorstep, and it’s easier to just donate to make them go away.

I think strong willed individuals with strong beliefs and a focus/passion to champion their cause are particularity valued. These individuals need to be charismatic and inspiring to be able to persuade others to join their cause or support their work financially. 

While these can all be a positive characteristics because it can give and sustain the drive of an organisation I can understand that these can also be problematic. For example the focus and passion for your cause can lead you to have tunnel vision and perhaps lose out on the potential to collaborate with others or to evolve your cause. An individual also needs to be able to be challenged by others and sometimes take a back seat otherwise the drive of the organisation is entirely reliant on their presence and so the organisations development is restricted as they only have so many hours in the day!

I am a feminist and I probably was one from early age if not birth. So it never occurred to me to think that masculinity was a required trait for a leader. This is partly because I have always had a good grasp of what is needed and what we like to do - so I was from an early convinced that while the leader of a lollipop factory or a head teacher might get a lot of attention but that actually people would still be alive if there were no schools or lollipop factories and that the people doing the stuff that actually kept us alive were, by and large, women and that it mant doing stuff that is leadership . 

I think that the crux of a good leaders is someone who can get others to agree with the change they wish to make. 

I have seen leaders do this by being charismatic and using their wealth/ intellect to charm people and I have seen leaders do this by simply working hard and winning over each and every person individually with facts and case studies.  

I think if you are trying to lead an organisation in a positive direction you will do so in a way that suits your character, trying to fit a 'leader' persona won't be as successful as using your passion and resources in a way that you are confident in. 

My experience of some leaders in the voluntary sector is that they behaved in an aggressive and controversial way, and seemed to feel that this was leadership.  My view on a good leader is that they should be able to make decisions and be directive when required and take responsibility for that, and can be collaborative, involve others in decision making when its appropriate (most of the time).  the important skill is when to use what approach to reach the end goal for the organisation and its beneficiaries.  belief, passion and commitment underpin all of these but are not unique to 'leaders'

I tend to subscribe to the viewpoint that there is no 'one-size-fits-all' leadership style or approach, and that different styles are suited to different organisations or situations. I think there have been plenty of good points made about the pitfalls of an over-reliance on one dominant figurehead, whilst also highlighting the benefits.

Genevieve Rudd's points about Camila Batmanghelidjh living modestly are an interesting point for discussion. It seems only natural to feel empathy with someone who is driven by a 'purpose' or 'calling', but isn't that why many of us get into the voluntary sector?

For me, I think I would be receptive to a leader in the voluntary sector that has had first-hand experience of working with service users. Team members are often dealing with issues that can cause practical difficulties and sometimes emotional distress. Working in this environment can be a very different experience to other sectors, and therefore it is important that the leader has some practical experience of dealing with these issues so that they can fully empathise with the needs of both the team and the service users.

I found this aspect quite challenging to think of in-terms of a stand-out leader who is valued over others.

There are many leaders in the voluntary sector, who will display good leadership traits, awareness, motivation, determination etc. but for me those don't make them a stand-out leader, in their own right. 

For me the stand out leaders are those individuals who perserve, have great compassion and can inspire others.  These individuals and are just as likely to be working in service delivery as those who perhaps 'lead' and organisation from the top.  Although there role in leadership may not be as formal it is perhaps in my view at least as valuable.

Valued Leadership in the Voluntary Sector

I have been considering some traits evident in leaders of voluntary organisations.

The common characteristics seem to be someone who feels an overwhelming sense of emotional awareness and cares enough. This emotional awareness may be realised at any point of someone’s life and may be induced by being directly or indirectly affected by a social issue. That is to say, directly affected by personal involvement, or, indirectly affected by accidental discovery or investigation. And simply asking, why?

By whatever means, leadership then seems to surface through the reactionary force of the will to bring about change. That conscious awareness then requires vast amounts of dialogue, pragmatism, and endeavour. And to bring this to life, the construct of leadership will require drawing on an individual’s reserves of intellect, passion, integrity… So will be uniquely nuanced for each leader.

It would seem that the most valued leaders are those who are ever present in the public psyche. They are relentless in the cause. They take every opportunity to highlight the problems and court engagement to make changes and improve lives. They learn to become savvy media operators, and possibly, have to learn to deal with an evolutionary rush from the ensuing groundswell of support. I think these battle cries, are not only good but necessary. However, infectious leadership will only be valued by other like-minded humanitarians. This is because they recognise the selfless quality that is an amalgam of caring enough combined with the will to rigorously examine the question of why. For anyone less sensitive, it is still hard to ignore the persistence of an impassioned leader.

I found this interesting to answer in the light of the current Oxfam/Save the Children scandals.

For me these have shown that the ability to make difficult and possibly unpopular decisions is necessary. But also the need to be able to handle media in all it's forms as this can very quickly make or break a career.

I can clearly recognise the leaders and managers in my organisation.  Personally for me, I still feel I'm sat somewhere in the middle!  As we saw in the earlier video on this module, for some people it can be hard to hold back when you are passionate about a cause or project and you just want to steam ahead and get the ball rolling, which is when the 'manager' traits come out.  However, having made this mistake in the past, I have realised the importance of leading on a project and ensuring you hear others ideas and get their buy-in.  I know that I am a 'doer' so I certainly still need to work on slowing down and considering all ideas and potential outcomes!

I do think that maybe leadership and management has been defined as a male role in the past, purely because of the role women used to play in the family.  I am shocked to see that definition still being used in more recent years though in some of the studies.  I think the role of women in the working world has come on in leaps and bounds over the last decade or so and more women that ever are taking on these roles.  I think we will continue to see this grow over the next decade. 

I'm also not convinced by the reference to all leaders being 'natural leaders' ie. being born with the right traits.  Yes, I agree that some will be born with more of the traits than others but I also believe that a person can learn those traits through their upbringing and attitude to life and work.  

Iam new to the voluntary sector leadership and must say this course is enlightening as it brings all thoughts and minds to leadership especially to the voluntary sector.

Iam starting to work with a leader who  is very passionate, caring, involved, very influential, ears wide open to listen, encourages participation, looks out for  like minded people, draws the bigger picture and yet very firm, persistent, and will not take no for an answer if he believes in something.

Having a vision and bringing that vision to work means that the leader is over whelmed with so much however this sometimes can be or might go wrong if work load is not distributed amongst peers. 

The question I would ask all leaders out there?? How would you see the voluntary organisation grow  in the event of your absences?

Depending on the answer, different leaders will focus on different attributes on bringing out their vision since voluntary is much broad than we perharps see it

There are a number of traits I've noticed are valued in the voluntary sector over others, including experience of working within and understanding of the specific cause the charity is aiming to change, and passion for this cause. Honesty, creativity, ability to work hard, communicate clearly, persuade diplomatically and treat everyone as equals are also highly valued. There isn't a set way for how these valued leaders look!

Many of these traits are helpful particularly when engaging with multiple senior stakeholders, inspiring the staff of an organisation and sustaining the drive of an organisation. However, sometimes being passionate about the cause can mean that you lead as an individual rather than through collaborative leadership, which limits how far you can drive your cause forwards. Additionally, sometime conflict rather than diplomacy is needed to reach a decision and avoiding this conflict can mean you are not driving the organisations forwards.  

From my perspective working in the mental health part of the voluntary sector (and often in collaboration with statutory services) I have noticed a bit of a gap between the leadership people say the want, or that they want to provide, and leadership in practice. There is a strong focus on collaborative or co-productive processes in working around mental health that involve people 'at the top' working in partnership with people with mental health problems. Practically this is quite hard to do and can take a lot of time. Some people are really good at it and truly inspiring in their ability to include and listen to everyone's point of view. However, I have seen projects which are described as collaborations, but where I know that actually those collaborative processes have been circumvented or at least truncated for the purpose of speeding things along, and decisions that could be made collectively are actually taken by someone in a leadership position. They then seek 'endorsement' for these decisions, which is not really in the spirit of a true collaboration. From the outside this probably looks good but being on the inside of one of these efforts is disheartening and can lead to disillusionment. 

I have also noticed that there are quite a lot of people who may fit into the 'Founder' role, who are often very passionate people who move and think fast, and who have a lot of expertise. I find these individuals can be inspiring, but are also sometimes difficult to keep up with and so can actually end up intimidating some new entrants to the sector who may have a lot to offer.

I would be interested in know how far these issues extend across other parts of the voluntary sector.

Voluntary sector leaders often have a absolute connection with the charity they lead, and may have set it up from scratch.

This is positive as they are focused, dedicated to the cause, and relentless in their pursuit of making a difference to their end user.  They will inspire others with their passion, influence others to support the cause and demonstrate passion and commitment beyond the norm.

However, there are negatives;  they may be so obsessed with delivering the end product, they take their eye of the ball of internal workings, balancing the books and the external influences that impact the success of the charity.  Sometime decisions may be made by the heart, not the head, and therefore are not always the best ones.

They may show disappointment if others don't pace the same level of importance on their charity as they do.

My experience has been that initially team members like to see that their leader has a personal connection to their particular charity, that they really believe in it and have passion, the highest levels of commitment and that they almost live an breath it.  However, I think that is not always what an organisation needs; all decisions can be deferred to the top as others don't feel empowered to take decisions about something the leader feels so stringly connected to.

I don’t believe there is a particular kind of leader for the voluntary sector, I do however, believe that the old hierarchical style of leadership no longer has a place in today’s voluntary organisations.  Today’s voluntary leaders characteristics may differ depending on the organisation but  the essential behavioural framework is about growing the organisations influence and reputation, good judgement, building talent, collaboration, fostering inclusion and encouraging diverse thinking. 

If the leader is overly charismatic and persuasive as in the case of  Camila Batmanghelidjh then there is a risk that no one else in the organisation feels able to stand up and have a view. The traits of a leader set the tone of the organisation and that can be a significant aspect of the success (or failure) of a voluntary organisation.

In my experience, there are leaders who are charismatic in nature and have a strong passion for the charity they are representing however those types of leaders are not necessarily challenging and avoid conflict. Within the voluntary sector, a leader must be able to deal with conflict because the everchanging voluntary sector needs leaders who can passionate but also strong willed in order to copy with the competitive charity environment. 

I think that there is not one set list of characteristics to define a leader who would be most valued by all people, as everyone has different thoughts about leadership, as we have seen in the forum discussing the definitions of leadership - not one is the same. Everyone has different priorities when it comes to what they feel they require in their leader.

A leader who holds values in line with that of the organisation will be able to lead an organisation in a direction that stays true to its core values and mission. A leader who is inspiring and collaborative will be able to motivate and bring people together. A leader who can recognise weaknesses in the organisation and themselves will promote growth and change, but using this to be overly ambitious and overly innovative could be disruptive and create a high level of risk. A leader who is confident and ready to face adversity and criticism head on is good as voluntary sector leaders can come under scrutiny, but this is good only at a level where others still feel able to appropriately challenge and criticise for the good of the organisation without fear.

It's hard to generalise about the kinds of leaders who are valued, as there is so much diversity within the sector. Unsuprisingly, I guess, there is often a correlation between the mission and values of the organisation and the ways in which leadership is understood. The question also begs another question: valued by whom? (trustees? staff? volunteers? other stakeholders?). 

Overall, I would say, the kind of leadership that is valued within large voluntary organisations looks more similar to the kind of leader that is valued in large organisations of other kinds (and I think of that as associated with traits that are often seen to be masculine: assertiveness, drive, entrepreneuralism, decisiveness, energy).When I picture a CEO of a large charity I think of a man or woman in a suit, holding out a business card. I picture the kind of person who would blend in at a conference of NHS executives. They would behave in ways that might generally be understood to be 'professional'.  

Within smaller, more grassroots organisations it seems to me that other kinds of qualities are often valued: authenticity, networking skills, kindness, the ability to get alongside people, mentoring skills etc. When I picture a leader within that kind of organisation I picture someone who would blend in at a community group fundraiser and seem - to the people there - approachable at first glance. 

The first type of leader might do a good job of getting businesses or public sector organisations onside and of ensuring that finances are managed effectively.  They may well be better paid and thus have better defences against burnout.  The second type of leader may be good at involving everyone, listening to and harnessing their ideas.  But that may be at the expense of 'efficiency', in terms of getting things done fast.  They may be at risk of overwhelm too.  If they are the only wage earner in their family, it is quite possible that they will be having to do another job in the evening to make ends meet.

 As I write this, I am aware that it is full of stereotypes and a vast oversimplification.  That is, it is equally possible that the first type of leader will have excellent skills in working participatively in complex organisations (perhaps they will have been supported to develop those through training and, of course, they may - though may not! -  have started out as the second 'type' of leader). The second type of leader may well be so identified with the mission of the organisation that they are unable to hear other perspectives, and too tired to know what to do with them!

I have seen leaders picked because of their experience and popularity to the public. I have seen people picked as ambassadors because it may raise the profile of the charity or organisation for example celebrities becoming a spokesperson for a cause, but does that make them a leader and an effective one? I think there needs to be a balance within leadership within the voluntary and charitable sector. I think a good leader should be passionate about the cause, before their own ego or sense of ego. A good leader should not be afraid of challenges and changes and be confident in expressing themselves for the good of the vision. Flexibility is also a good trait within a leader. Picking a good leader can become a good reward as they may be able to influence others to join in action towards the vision because of popularity but they may also not be able to commit to projects because of other commitments so i think the voluntary sector must be careful when choosing people as leaders or representatives/patrons as a tool for progression. I think it is also important for the leader to have a good understanding of the sector and vision of the organisation.