Community leadership: A comparison between asset-based community-led development (ABCD) and the traditional needs-based approach

ABSTRACT

A comparison study was undertaken between the asset-based community-led development (ABCD) approaches versus the traditional needs-based approach to community development relating to community leadership. A purposive sampling technique was used to select 24 community projects in South Africa for the study, of which 14 were sensitised to ABCD and 10 were not. The kind of community leadership developed in ABCD communities enabled communities to lead their own development by co-investing their own assets, and leveraging their assets with resources from external agencies. In comparison, although development took place, the leadership that emerged in the needs-oriented projects was more authoritarian in nature, and in some instances, seemed to establish a dependency on external agencies. Community leadership that contributes to projects that were more driven by community members complements the principles of appreciative leadership, which were more evident in ABCD-sensitised communities.

KEYWORDS:

• Community leadership
• asset-based community-led development (ABCD)
• traditional needs-based community development approach
• appreciative leadership

1. Introduction

Community leadership, common to all community development projects, is the enabling of the relational capacity of community members to initiate the creative and often hidden potential of the community and turn it into initiatives driven by empowered community members. It is an organic process, situated in all community members and encompasses dialogical, collective decision making ‘to set in motion positive ripples of confidence, energy, enthusiasm and performance’ (Whitney et al., 2010: 3).

However, it has been noticed in literature and practice that community leaders who practise the asset-based community development (ABCD) approach act differently from leaders who guide their communities through a needs-based lens (Boyd et al., 2008; Tebele & Nel, 2011; Durie & Wyatt, 2013). It is evident that the needs- and problem-oriented approach has dominated the development field up until now and has unintentionally encouraged poverty-influenced mind-sets and a dependency on external agencies (Mathie & Cunningham, 2003, 2005; Wilkenson-Maposa, 2008). There is however no doubt that change is taking place, but the needs-based approach to development imposes programmes on communities and marginalises the poor and powerless (Green & Haines, 2008). On the other hand, leadership in asset-oriented communities has shown that people take responsibility for and assume ownership of their future, and community members demonstrate signs of self-reliance (Ssewamala et al., 2010; Yeneabat & Butterfield, 2010; Nel, 2011; Eliasov & Peters, 2013; Mathie & Peters, 2014). While examples of the successful application of ABCD in communities in general have been recorded, no formal evaluation has been undertaken to determine differences in terms of community leadership in ABCD in comparison to the traditional needs-based approach. To address the leanness in research, a comparative qualitative study was conducted on the nature of leadership in ABCD versus the traditional, more needs-based approach.

2. Conceptual framework

Social development has been established in South Africa as a policy and paradigm for addressing poverty, inequality, and social justice (Patel, 2015). Furthermore, community development is well-embedded in social development and could be seen as one of the methods applied in addressing the many challenges facing South and southern Africa (White Paper for Social Welfare, 1997). Community development, one of the five community work models in social work (Weyers, 2011), can be defined as a ‘people-centred change process facilitated with a community of people to take action to increasingly actualise their fundamental human needs to enhance the quality of their own lives and those of the wider community that they are part of’ (Schenck et al., 2010: 6). The characteristics of a people-centred change process, as described by Homan (2011), Block (2009), Schenck et al. (2010) and Brueggemann (2014), encompass dialogical, collective decision making and action, create beneficial external relationships, and foster community self-reliance and confidence based on positive relationships and trust. Furthermore, in general, community development can be approached through either a needs-based or an asset-based lens. Asset-based community development (ABCD), a term coined by Kretzmann & McKnight (1993), was designed to counteract the problem-based approach to community development. ABCD authors and practitioners believe leaders in many formal and informal organisations tend to unintentionally suppress community involvement by emphasising deficiencies, needs and problems, which then results in communities becoming dependent on services rendered by these organisations (Mathie & Cunningham, 2003, 2005; Yeneabat & Butterfield, 2010). The deficiency, needs-based approach often has a restricting effect on people when they and their needs and problems are viewed as the focus of intervention. They start believing that their problems can only be solved by experts and not by themselves as community members (Green & Haines, 2008). Consequently, these experts, outsiders or power-holders (Yeneabat & Butterfield, 2010), such as social workers, practitioners, funders and developers, tend to make decisions on behalf of and render services to communities.

The approach to leadership is therefore key to ensuring that community members are empowered, self-reliant citizens, driving their own future (Eliasov & Peters, 2013). The approaches that complement community development principles and practices encompass democratic, transformational, servant, value-driven, participatory, shared and appreciative leadership. It further seems that appreciative leadership, a term coined by Whitney et al. (2010), embraces all the above-mentioned contemporary leadership theories and adds a positive dimension to leadership (Eliasov, 2013; Nel, 2014). In general, globally, in both developed and specifically in developing countries, w h e t h e r t h e o r g a n i s a t i o n i s p r o b l e m - o r a s s e t -b a s e d i n n a t u r e, the approach to leadership has shifted from individualistic top-down authoritarian command and control practices (which were mainly driven by a problem-based approach) to one whereby leaders engage with people in an interdependent, positive, and caring manner (Davids, 2005; Rankin & Engelbrecht, 2014). Whitney et al. (2010: XX) believe that, when leaders engage with people in a participatory, positive and caring way, those people ‘collectively transform their organisation and communities; and in the process they change’. Community leadership is relationship driven, it is positive in nature, it turns creative potential into positive power, and set in motion ripples of confidence, energy, enthusiasm and performance.

Relationships and trust are at the heart of leadership, coupled with qualities such as inspiration, vision, humility, and flexibility (Cooperrider & Whitney, 1999, 2001; Ozor & Nwankwa, 2008; Nel 2014). C o m m u n i t y leaders believe that everyone has a positive core of strengths and a passionate calling to be fulfilled, which leaders seek to bring forward and nurture. It is the leader’s task to facilitate people through a process of reflection, inquiry and dialogue, in a shared way, whereby local people realise their potential and power. Power could be defined as ‘the ability or capacity to act or perform effectively’ (Whitney et al., 2010: 15). In order to be effective, community members must feel that their destiny is in their own hands as a result of articulating what matters to them, making their own decisions, engaging with others and creating a world that is acceptable to them. Community leaders are thus committed to transferring power from power-holders to community members (Nel, 2011; Nel & Pretorius, 2012; Pretorius & Nel, 2012). Community leadership is also about providing support to each other, learning together and collaborating with others to create a future (Whitney & Trosten-Bloom, 2010).

When community members practise the above-mentioned community leadership roles, ‘many people outgrow the limits of their realities and move into a larger, more appreciative world – like lotus flowers growing from the mud’ (Whitney et al., 2010: 10). Pro-active leaders create a ripple effect of positive change in themselves and the bigger community enabling them to move towards becoming active citizens (Whitney et al., 2010; Nel, 2014; Martiskainen, 2017). They start organising and governing themselves and have bargaining power when approaching outside stakeholders (Hope & Timmel, 1995; Kumar, 2002; Oko, 2006; Russell & Smeaton, 2010; Eliasov & Peters, 2013).

From the discussion above it could be concluded that the approach to leadership within the context of community development in general is that it is a community-driven instead of an externally-driven process despite the level of poverty and marginalisation of the community.

3. Research methodology

The nature of the study was qualitative, with the aim of comparing and describing the characteristics of leadership within communities where ABCD and traditional problem-based approaches were applied (Nel, 2018). The research question formulated for this study was: How does community leadership differ from ABCD-sensitised communities to non-ABCD-sensitised communities?

Twenty-four community projects were selected using a purposive sampling technique, of which 14 were ABCD-sensitised and 10 were not. A reference group selected the projects in four provinces of South Africa, namely, the Western Cape, the Eastern Cape, Gauteng, and Limpopo. Project selection was based on the following criteria (ibid): projects had to have been in existence for at least two years; project leaders and members had to be willing to participate in the research; project leaders and members could decide on the number of participants to be included in the interviews; and project members of ABCD interventions must have had training in ABCD and engaged in ABCD; and, lastly, members of non-ABCD-sensitised projects had received no training in and had experienced no formal engagement with ABCD.

To gauge the leadership effects of these two approaches, a qualitative, semi-structured interview schedule was developed by the reference group and four Master’s students who were studying Community Development (ibid). The purpose of the interview was to gain from participants their views on the nature of leadership and the contribution they felt leadership made to changes within their communities and projects. Interviews were organised and conducted with people who were involved in projects in their communities by three Master’s students. The participants consisted primarily of project leaders and staff members of these projects. Between one and nine participants were interviewed per project. The participants decided t h e m s e l v e s w h o h a d t o b e i n c l u d e d a s i n t e r v i e w e e s (i b i d).

The Ethics Committee of the faculty of Humanities of the University of Johannesburg in South Africa gave approval for the study to be conducted and all relevant parties signed informed consent forms. Anonymity was also agreed to and permission was received to record all interviews. It was also agreed that the results would be shared with the participants involved in the projects (ibid).

The interviews were transcribed by three Master’s students and analysed separately by a fourth, together with the author of this article. In the data-analysis phase, a bottom-up inductive approach was primarily utilised, ‘moving from the specific to the general, using an informal logic, open-ended, exploratory approach’ (ibid: 39).

Integrated procedures were used in the analysis of the data, as described by Creswell (2014), Grbich (2007) and Henning (2004). The transcribed data were coded, using the constant comparison method, and thereafter categorised in terms of themes and categories. Lastly, themes and categories were analysed and linked to relevant literature.

Guba’s model of trustworthiness was employed to enhance the credibility and rigour of the findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Creswell, 2014). Primarily, three a c t i v i t i e s were used to address biases in favour of the ABCD approach. A Master’s student and this author analysed the data separately and then reached consensus on the findings in terms of main themes and categories. Member checking, a method used to enhance the credibility and truth value of findings, was applied to all participants involved in the study. T o r e d u c e s u b j e c t i v i t y a n d b i a s e s, t h e a u t h o r a n d M a s t e r’s s t u d e n t e a c h k e p t a reflexive journal and engaged in critical discussions (Finlay, 2002; Thomas-Richmond, 2013, Nel, 2018).

3.1 Demographic information

Twenty-four ABCD-sensitised rural, urban, and peri-urban community projects were studied. Forty-nine participants of the ABCD-sensitised community projects and 12 participants of the non-ABCD-sensitised projects were interviewed (Nel, 2018).

The projects were diverse in nature and size, from income-generating projects (such as brick-making and producing and selling of vegetables, plants (from nurseries), beadwork, cushions, sweets, and chips); service-rendering projects (such as home-based care projects, soup kitchens, provision of food parcels, psycho-social support groups for adults and children, holiday programmes for children, life skills projects for women, children, youth and elderly people, gender sensitivity workshops, savings schemes, substance abuse, violence); and public works projects (ibid).

4. Discussion

The research question addressed how leadership in ABCD-sensitised communities differs from that in traditional, more needs-based communities. Analysis of the data revealed that differences did exist between the 14 ABCD-sensitised projects and the 10 non-ABCD-sensitised projects. Changes took place at three levels – personal, organisational, and community – within both types of project.

4.1 Personal level

In ABCD-sensitised communities, ordinary community members assumed leadership roles, whereas leaders in non-ABCD-sensitised communities consisted of more formal, paid officials.

In ABCD-sensitised communities, leadership activities were conducted at the ground level by ordinary community members using their assets in ways that they decided upon themselves. Community members were driven by a passion for making a difference in their own l i v e s a n d t h o s e o f o t h e r s b y the rendering of services and/or launching of projects.

Through the investment of local assets in projects that were decided by local people themselves, people became personally empowered and motivated. Their confidence and successes motivated them to broaden their scope of investment. Remarks in this regard included:

We value ourselves now and know that we can do it. Almost everything you see here was done by women who had a passion to make a difference. This organisation does not exist because of money; if you want to get money or a stipend this is not the place for you but if you want to make change out there then you are welcome.

This finding confirms an important feature of leadership; namely, that leadership is situated in ordinary people at the ground level, using their own and their communities’ assets and strengths, and they appreciate each other’s contributions (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993; Whitney et al., 2010; Nel, 2014). However, in some ABCD-sensitised communities people found it difficult to break the cycle of dependency on the organisations responsible for running community projects, especially where such projects did not exist for long. One manager of a community-based organisation (CBO) stated, ‘People tend to fall back on needs and problems and expect us [the organisation] to give hand-outs.’ Fewer signs of independence were noticed, and many reasons could be provided for this. One reason could be that community members were given less opportunity to be part of the decision-making process in terms of project thinking and planning (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2001; Ozor & Nwankwa, 2008; Nel, 2014). Consequently, fewer signs of independence were noticed in these projects.

In the non-ABCD-sensitised communities, it was evident that participants, when asked about local leadership, referred more to formal leaders, such as officials from the health department, ward councillors, the local doctor and social workers, than to ordinary people. It was also apparent that project managers also referred to themselves, and other people in formal positions, as leaders. On this subject, one participant observed, ‘Ward councillors are highly involved; matron in the hospital is also involved. Municipally, I have invited the local doctor.’ However, it was apparent that community members were personally capacitated in various ways but not to an extent whereby they took ownership for their own independent living. The leaders and managers of the organisations who were driving the projects felt responsible for the projects and seemed to be stressed about the fact that they had to search for funds for projects and rely on external funds; for example, ‘This work has changed my life, but we cannot do the work without financial support from outside’ and ‘This project needs funds which I have to look for’.

It is clear from the findings above that leadership in non-ABCD-sensitised communities was seen to be situated more in formal leaders than ordinary community members and driven more by the needs and problems of people, and less by the capacities and strengths of people, which is in contradiction to the theory and principles of community development leadership (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993; Nel, 2011; Pretorius & Nel, 2012; Eliasov & Peters, 2013). Bottom-up community-driven initiatives were observed to a lesser degree (Ife & Tesoriero, 2006).

4.2 Organisational level

Findings related to leadership at an organisational level also differed between ABCD-sensitised organisations and non-ABCD-sensitised organisations. Basic characteristics of leadership differed between them in terms of the approach to communities, organisational procedures, and vocabulary/language.

In ABCD-sensitised communities, managers and leaders usually approached people in the community by casting an appreciative eye over activities that had already been initiated there. These leaders tried putting the community’s agenda first, led from behind, and community members were encouraged to take the initiative. Furthermore, they specifically used two techniques to facilitate community members becoming owners of their future, namely, the unlocking and unblocking of assets, and also encouraged the gaining of social capital and unity. Most of the participants in the study held the view that everyone has something to offer and emphasised the importance of facilitating community members in uncovering hidden talents in themselves and their communities. Remarks supporting these findings were, ‘We work where the energy is; people who are willing to become engaged in the project’, ‘pushing agenda of community’ and ‘We work with what we have so even with no funding we will still continue with the work we do’.

Literature on community development leadership emphasised the unlocking and unblocking of various assets – human, physical, natural, political, and social – and stressed the importance of social assets that provide access to other assets (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993; Mathie & Cunningham, 2003, 2005; Cunningham, 2008; Nel & Pretorius, 2012). However, it was also found that, where leaders did not engage community members appropriately and neglected the conscientisation process of unlocking and unblocking of various assets, community members found it hard to take ownership of their projects.

In terms of organisational procedures, organisations driving ABCD-sensitised communities perceived the community members as ‘learning partners’, experts of their situation and ‘equal to the organisation’. They perceived working together with the communities as a learning process. The structure of the organisations was perceived as team-based rather than hierarchical, and trust and positive relationships as characteristics of these teams. Board members were involved in the functioning and decision-making procedures of the organisations and community projects. Organisations had to adapt constantly to the changing needs of the community and community members were encouraged to be more critical and reflective in what they (the organisations) were doing. The following remarks were made in relation to organisational procedures: ‘There is no “I am the director”; we are more team-based, have responsibility areas, more integrated’ and ‘In the past board members have been quite distant from the staff but now we have changed, and they are more hands on; we meet once per month’. It was also noted that the non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and CBOs have changed their language/vocabulary in relation to how they refer to people in the community. They no longer called the people ‘clients’ or ‘beneficiaries’ and instead referred to them as ‘learning partners’; for example, ‘We give them a chance to speak and not just go to them like we know everything; we all learn together’ and ‘they are our learning partners’. These findings correspond with the characteristics of appreciative, shared, democratic leadership, facilitating communities to become independent citizens driving their own development (Schenck et al., 2010; Nel, 2014).

The non-ABCD-sensitised communities were also interviewed regarding their approach to communities, organisational procedures, and vocabulary/language. In terms of their approach to communities, leaders in non-ABCD-sensitised communities focused primarily on problems and needs and operated according to the view that they would provide services. What often happened was that, after consultation with the communities, the organisation, with the assistance of the funders, decided on the kind of projects that should be implemented in the community.

The managers and leaders of organisations and projects were usually in control and worked according to the agenda of the organisation and funders, and not the community. They tended to focus primarily on assets that they, as managers and leaders, possessed and saw themselves as development experts. However, in some projects managers and leaders did recognise people’s skills and helped them apply such skills in their communities. As one participant observed, ‘they get exposure and teaching about community development so they can apply the same practices in their own communities’.

Many of the managers and leaders of problem-oriented NGOs/CBOs saw themselves as the drivers of development that had to raise funds and provide services to the community. They were motivated to search for outside assistance and perceived the sustainability of their communities and projects only in terms of funders providing resources on a long-term basis. Leaders who managed the organisations confirmed the approach executed in many of the non-ABCD-sensitised communities during their interviews: ‘We [managers] use our personal knowledge, experience, talents’; ‘I am a good trainer’; ‘I am the leader, I drive development’; ‘most people in the community know my role, we are not doing anything that is not good in their eyes’.

In terms of organisational procedures, in non-ABCD-sensitised communities decisions were usually made in an autocratic way. It is evident that management and board members were the main decision-makers regarding the functioning of organisations and projects. Although managers of the NGOs/CBOs tried to involve community members in decision making, such involvement tended to be to a limited extent and was often only consultative in nature. The different organisations in the community usually managed their projects in isolation; indeed, even projects within the same organisation did not work in an integrated way.

The following remarks confirmed views on the above-mentioned organisational procedures: ‘When it comes to decision making we meet up as management’; ‘me [manager], takes the decision to the board, and from the board I take the decision to the staff’, and ‘[We] hold a general meeting with community, back to management … in most cases management decides’. These responses demonstrate that differences exist depending on whether leadership is informed by ABCD- or problem-based approaches; that is, the degree of participation of community members and their engagement with managers and leaders of projects. Such differences affect project outcomes (Swanepoel & De Beer, 2006; Homan, 2011). There is evidence, however, that even when leaders followed a problem-based approach they did still bring about change, for example when initiating campaigns to boost awareness of issues such as HIV, Aids, child abuse, and domestic violence. As one participant remarked, ‘even with child abuse … people know where to go  …  domestic violence is not as high as it was’.

The language used by NGOs and CBOs was different from that used in ABCD-sensitised organisations. Leaders were usually driving the process of development and saw their role as providing to their beneficiaries, in the form of skills training, money, vegetable gardens, food parcels, etc. The following remarks reveal their perceptions of their role: ‘We [management] do gardening projects for them; we create jobs for them; they are the beneficiaries’ and ‘we render services, funding is very important to run the project, we serve the community’.

These findings provide evidence of a top-down, authoritative leadership approach, applied primarily by the managers and board members of organisations. Leaders saw relationships between themselves and community members as more important than relationships among community members. This kind of leadership is not in line with contemporary views on leadership in general, and specifically in relation to community development (Nel, 2018). However, managers and leaders did involve community members to a certain extent in the execution of some projects. Although such involvement was limited, people were nevertheless empowered and their lives changed accordingly. However, signs of such independence were limited.

4.3 Community level

Changes took place at the community level within both ABCD-sensitised and non-ABCD-sensitised communities in terms of the following: co-investment, unity, and governing structures. However, the changes differed between these two communities.

In ABCD-sensitised communities it was found that local people drove their own development, gained skills and confidence, and were able to work together towards common goals. They organised their own initiatives and made use of resources a v a i l a b l e in themselves and the communities. Furthermore, people recognised each other’s competencies, co-invested their assets in a collaborative way, and utilised outside resources on terms decided by themselves as project members. The following remarks provide evidence of the co-investment of community members using their own resources and their approach to outside resources: ‘We buy things locally; use local people; got a local person to make bricks’, ‘This project, we all own it and it gives us pride to be able to work well together as project members and have a common purpose’, and ‘each one puts money into our bank account’.

Some projects were not fully operating in a collaborative interdependent way, due to various reasons, one of which was that community members wanted to see results immediately. As one participant remarked: ‘Some projects, they don’t want to put in much, only want to benefit.’

Key to all the activities in the ABCD communities was unity, trust, and positive relationships among people. They also emphasised the importance of sharing and caring for each other and in the process discovered their own power and capabilities in terms of organising activities; for example, ‘we feel united; do things collectively; have trusting relationships’.

It was interesting to discover that community members at the ground level had established governing structures in an orderly way. This means that they had mapped their assets and made use of these maps in their projects; had written plans for their projects; held regular meetings; kept minutes of all meetings; kept a book of all sales; had a bank account; and had office bearers.

In many of the non-ABCD-sensitised communities, people were often motivated only by what they could receive in funds and services from the organisation. Furthermore, evidence showed that hierarchical top-down structures drove the process, and managers and leaders of these organisations were committed to the rendering of services. It was apparent that the relationship between community members and some organisations was based on demand and expectations. The relationships between community members and organisations were usually positive but in some situations only effective as long as the community members received stipends, services, and training. Tension existed between organisations and community members; for example, ‘They do not always appreciate us [the organisation]; [they] want us to bring tangible things all the time.’

However, people were empowered in these communities and indeed became empowered and assertive in the process, as evidenced by the following comment: ‘We train the youth to dance and do drama, we set up social events  …  [we] do workshops on gender-based violence.’ Clearly, the leaders of the organisations were passionate about their work in the communities and did manage and drive the projects efficiently, but not to an extent whereby community members start organising and governing themselves and assume ownership of the projects (Oko, 2006; Eliasov & Peters, 2013).

5. Conclusions

In general, it was found that everyone associated with the 24 projects and communities that were part of this study benefitted from development interventions. In communities that were primarily not sensitised to ABCD principles and practices, results showed evidence of authoritarian leadership, a leadership style that is not proposed by community practitioners in general (Homan, 2011). However, in certain projects, the input of the community was needed to a lesser degree and leaders were required to act in a more authoritative way, such as providing infrastructure and services and launching awareness campaigns. Hence, the way in which community leadership was executed in the ABCD-sensitised communities in general led to more ground-level, self-driven, independent interventions. What was not surprising was that ABCD leaders behaved in ABCD ways post-ABCD training, given the fact that all employees of those organisations and the community members involved in the projects were trained in ABCD.

The original and important contribution of this study is identification of the four characteristics of community leadership that should preferably be employed when practising community development. First, leadership should be locally shared and owned by community members. This leadership should be value-driven, participatory, authentic, and appreciative in nature. Leaders should recognise the strengths and capacities already present in the communities and utilise these on the basis of care and trust (Ozor & Nwankwa, 2008; Martiskainen, 2017).

During the unlocking and unblocking of assets, leaders should facilitate community members to identify their various assets and those of the wider community, such as human, physical, political, social, natural, and cultural strengths and capabilities (Cooperrider & Whitney, 1999; Gilchrist, 2004; Cunningham, 2008; Nel, 2011, 2014). Leaders should also realise the importance of social assets; the asset that enables community members to gain access to other assets.

Second, the aim of community leaders should be to transfer power from organisations to community members so as to create independent and self-reliant citizens (Brown, 2007; Block, 2009; Mathie & Peters, 2014). Organisations should empower the community in such a way that even the less powerful can, and should, gain access to resources and become drivers of development in their community (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993). It became apparent that effective community leadership is about returning power to communities, which then results in lasting social change (Nel, 2015).

Third, leaders should facilitate change at three levels: personal, organisational, and community. It should start within community members on a personal consciousness level, where attitudinal and mind-set changes take place. Attitudinal and mind-set changes will primarily take place if participants are involved in activities that they are passionate about. Money does not drive genuine development. Projects should start off small, using resources they have at hand to undertake tasks they can accomplish without relying on outside assets (Mathie & Peters, 2014). These achievements would create positive ripples throughout their families, organisations, and communities (Whitney et al., 2010). Furthermore, this process instils confidence and self-reliance in participants, who start driving their own development and use what they accomplish as leverage to gain support from outside role-players (Schenck et al., 2010; Whitney et al., 2010; Nel & Pretorius, 2012). A combination of outside role-players and community initiatives should be glued together in innovative partnerships (Ashford & Patkar, 2001; Nel, 2018), but the community should take the lead.

Fourth, in terms of leadership approach, those organisations aiming to facilitate development should be structured in a flat, team-oriented manner. Community members should be seen as equal partners with the organisation, as experts of their situation.

However, the findings of this study also reveal that not all projects and communities can be guided by the type of leadership described above. It is thus recommended that further research be conducted to establish which leadership approach is most appropriate in which circumstances given the different nature and challenges of individual communities.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.