Collaborative Trust: Leadership Practices in Post-Conflict Community Reintegration

Collaborative trust is fundamental to successful post-conflict reintegration, yet little is known about how leadership practices facilitate trust, participation, and social cohesion among former rebels in resettlement communities. This study explored the lived experiences of former rebels to examine how leadership influences collaborative trust in government housing communities. Employing a qualitative phenomenological design, data were collected through in-depth semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, field observations, and documentary analysis. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to identify patterns across participants' experiences.
The findings revealed that collaborative trust develops through strategic and inclusive leadership that promotes safety, shared norms, participation, and mutual accountability. Effective leadership fostered interpersonal trust, strengthened residents' sense of belonging, encouraged collective decision-making, and supported identity transformation from former combatants to active community members. However, livelihood insecurity and continued dependence on government assistance constrained the sustainability of collaborative relationships. The study proposes that collaborative trust is not an automatic outcome of resettlement but a leadership-driven process shaped by institutional support, community participation, and social capital. These findings informed the development of the Structured Reintegration Model, which positions collaborative trust as a central mechanism linking strategic leadership with sustainable community reintegration. The study contributes to leadership and public management literature by demonstrating that effective post-conflict reintegration requires adaptive, collaborative, and community-centered leadership beyond the provision of housing alone.

collaborative trust, strategic leadership, post-conflict reintegration, community cohesion, social capital, former rebels, Philippines

1. Amsler, L. B. (2016). Collaborative governance: Integrating management, politics, and law. Public Administration Review, 76(5), 700–711. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12605 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Agbodzakey, J. K. (2021). Leadership in collaborative governance: The case of HIV/AIDS health services planning council in South Florida. International Journal of Public Administration, 44(13), 1051–1064. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2017). Design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 77(5), 647–663. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Crosby, B. C., Hart, P., & Torfing, J. (2017). Public value creation through collaborative innovation. Public Management Review, 19(5), 655–669. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Denis, J. L., Ferlie, E., & Van Gestel, N. (2015). Understanding hybridity in public organizations. Public Administration, 93(2), 273–289. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2018). Collaborative governance regimes. Georgetown University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Feng, B., & Xing, H. (2025). How can regional collaborative governance promote public value through relational leadership? Policy & Governance Review, 9(1), 11–29. https://doi.org/10.30589/pgr.v9i1.1085 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. George, B., Walker, R. M., & Monster, J. (2019). Does strategic planning improve organizational performance? Public Administration Review, 79(6), 810–819. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Getha-Taylor, H., Grayer, M. J., Kempf, R. J., & O’Leary, R. (2019). Collaborating in the absence of trust? What collaborative governance theory and practice can learn from the literatures of conflict resolution, psychology, and law. The American Review of Public Administration, 49(1), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074018773089 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Kaplan, O., & Nussio, E. (2018). Community counts: The social reintegration of ex-combatants in Colombia. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 35(2), 132–153. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Kinder, T., Stenvall, J., Six, F., & Memon, A. (2021). Relational leadership in collaborative governance ecosystems. Public Management Review, 23(11), 1612–1639. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1879913 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Liu, Y. (2024). Public trust and collaborative governance: An instrumental variable approach. Public Management Review, 26(2), 421–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2095003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Mergel, I. (2018). Open innovation in the public sector: Drivers and barriers for the adoption of challenge.gov. Public Management Review, 20(5), 726–745. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Northouse, P. G. (2022). Leadership: Theory and practice (9th ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Oh, Y., & Bush, C. B. (2016). Exploring the role of dynamic social capital in collaborative governance. Administration & Society, 48(2), 216–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399714544941 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Raelin, J. A. (2016). Imagine there are no leaders: Reframing leadership as collaborative agency. Leadership, 12(2), 131–158. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Republic Act No. 10173. (2012). Data Privacy Act of 2012. Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Schein, E. H., & Schein, P. A. (2021). Organizational culture and leadership (6th ed.). Wiley. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Schwandt, T. A., Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2007/2021 reprint). Judging interpretations: But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. (Use the most recent edition available if cited.) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Torfing, J., Sørensen, E., & Røiseland, A. (2019). Transforming the public sector into an arena for co-creation. Administration & Society, 51(5), 795–825. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. United Nations Development Programme. (2022). Human development report 2021/2022: Uncertain times, unsettled lives. UNDP. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Van Wart, M., Roman, A., Wang, X., & Liu, C. (2019). Operationalizing the definition of public leadership. The American Review of Public Administration, 49(3), 280–298. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Virojphan, P. (2026). How leadership and social capital enable collaboration for sustainable development in Asia: A systematic review. Journal of Social Development and Management Strategy, 28(1), 47–79. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. World Bank. (2022). World development report 2022: Finance for an equitable recovery. World Bank. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Xing, H., Luo, L., & Feng, B. (2026). Lead by relationship: The behaviors of relational leadership in regional collaborative governance. Systems, 14(1), 95. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems14010095 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y. L., & Li, X. B. (2015/2016 reprint commonly cited). Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 538–566 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]