• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Integrative Leadership and the Creation and Maintenance of Cross-Sector Collaborations

By

Barbara C. Crosby and John M. Bryson

Abstract

This article presents a theoretical framework for understanding integrative leadership and the creation and maintenance of cross-sector collaborations that create public value. We define integrative leadership as bringing diverse groups and organizations together in semi-permanent ways – and typically across sector boundaries – to remedy complex public problems and achieve the common good. Our framework highlights in particular the leadership roles and activities of collaboration sponsors and champions. The framework is illustrated with examples from the development of MetroGIS, a geographic information system that promotes better public problem solving in the Minneapolis-St. Paul region of the U.S. A set of propositions is offered to guide further research and to prompt reflective practice.

1 Integrative Leadership and the Creation and Maintenance of Cross-sector Collaborations

By

Barbara C. Crosby and John M. Bryson

Many major public problems or challenges – such as global warming, HIV/AIDS, economic development, poverty, homelessness – can be addressed effectively only if many organizations collaborate. Collaborators would include governments certainly, but often must include businesses, nonprofit organizations, foundations, higher education institutions, and community groups as well. Leaders and managers in government organizations thus face the need to inspire, mobilize, and sustain their own agencies, but also to engage numerous other partners in their problem-solving efforts. As we see it, this is the basic challenge of integrative public leadership – defined as bringing diverse groups and organizations together in semi-permanent ways, and typically across sector boundaries, to remedy complex public problems and achieve the common good. We have argued elsewhere that such problems are often due to the characteristic failings of government, business, and civil society and that sustainable remedies must draw on the characteristic strengths of each sector while overcoming or minimizing their weaknesses (Bryson and Crosby, 2008). In other words, the power to adopt and actually deliver effective solutions is shared among sectors and organizations within the sectors. Integrative public leaders will have to lead across sector boundaries to foster the requisite relationships and resource flows needed to produce desirable outcomes Several analysts (e.g., Cleveland, 2002; Crosby and Bryson, 2005) have provided insights about leadership in this “shared-power, no-one-wholly-in-charge world,” an increasingly apt descriptor in the early years of the 21st century. Scholars also have made headway in considering the implications for government power, authority, and responsibility in such a world. What does it mean, they have asked, when so-called

2 “public” problems spill beyond government’s power and authority, yet citizens still look to democratic governments to help solve them? Harlan Cleveland (1977, 1993, 2002) was among those who a few decades ago first began popularizing the term “governance” to describe arrangements (regimes) in which government bodies share power with other types of organizations to create significant achievements of lasting public value (Kettl, 2002, 2009; Light, 2002; Osborne, 2010). A substantial body of scholarship now describes how public administrators create and manage collaborations among governments, businesses, and non-profits. Indeed, collaborative public management has become a hot topic (e.g., Goldsmith and Eggers, 2004; Agranoff, 2007; Bingham and O’Leary, 2008; O’Leary and Bingham, 2008; and Kettl, 2009). Much of this work builds on a long-standing tradition of research into public-private partnerships and other cross-sector policy “tools” (Salamon, 2002; Osborne, 2010). At the same time, leadership language and scholarship have been remarkably scarce in the academic literature on collaboration, although the literature typically does highlight implicitly the roles of what we call sponsors and champions. Huxham and Vangen (2005) are an exception in their focus on leadership as enacted through the “media” of people, processes and structures. We agree with them in part, but see leaders as agents as well as media. In addition, a National Academy of Public Administration-sponsored book (Morse, Buss, and Kinghorn, 2007) brings together a number of scholars who discuss public leadership in collaborative settings. Chrislip and Larson (1994) and Chrislip (2002) offer guidance for collaborative civic leaders; Linden (2002) also describes qualities of government and nonprofit leaders engaged in cross- agency collaboration. This article adds to the growing attention to leadership among scholars of public administration and governance. It also builds on the work of leadership scholars who are increasingly describing the existence of, and increased need for, shared, collective, and distributed leadership within organizations and networks (see Pearce and Conger, 2003; Uhl-Bien, Marion, and McKelvey, 2007; Ospina and Foldy, this issue). The article presents a framework for understanding integrative leadership in cross-sector collaborative settings in which government is typically an important actor, but not the only actor. The starting point is a widely cited cross-sector collaboration framework and

3 set of propositions developed by Bryson, Crosby and Stone (2006). That framework consists of five main elements: initial conditions, process, structure and governance, contingencies and constraints, and outcomes and accountabilities. The framework addresses factors affecting cross-sector collaboration in general, and is not focused specifically on leaders and leadership. The revised framework presented here acknowledges that leaders and leadership are crucial in integrating all aspects of the framework. Said differently, we argue that leadership work is central to the creation and maintenance of cross-sector collaborations that advance the common good. The revised framework builds on an extensive literature review, as well as on our subsequent research into cross-sector collaborations (Bryson, Crosby and Stone, 2007), particularly in the areas of employment (Stone, 2007), urban transportation systems (Bryson, Crosby and Stone, 2008; Bryson, et al., 2009), and regional geographic information system development (Bryson, Crosby and Bryson, 2009). The revised framework draws attention to crucial leadership work related to bridging processes and structures, including: bridging roles and boundary spanning activities (Maguire, Hardy and Lawrence, 2004), the creation of boundary experiences and boundary groups and organizations (Feldman, et al., 2006), boundary object creation and use (Carlile, 2002, 2004; Kellogg, Orlikowski and Yates, 2006), and the development of nascent or proto- institutions (Lawrence, Hardy and Phillips, 2002). In the revised framework leadership work clearly is central. Throughout this article we offer illustrations from the creation and institutionalization of MetroGIS, an award-winning geographic information system (GIS) initiative in the Twin Cities (Minneapolis – Saint Paul) metropolitan area of Minnesota, USA. MetroGIS is a completely voluntary collaborative network of over 300 governmental units, businesses, and nonprofit organizations that has created a mostly virtual geographic information systems organization under the auspices of the Metropolitan Council (MC), the regional government (www.metrogis.org). Note that the case is used for illustrative purposes only; it is not a test of the framework. Indeed, the flow was the other way – our study of MetroGIS (Bryson, Crosby, and Bryson, 2009) helped crystallize the revision of the earlier framework. In the article’s next section we briefly describe geographic information systems and their importance, and also present a

4 thumbnail history of the MC and MetroGIS. In the following section we present the revised framework. In doing so, we briefly recap the propositions drawn from the literature and presented previously. Most space, however, is devoted to presenting the propositions related to the highlighted bridging processes and structures. In the final concluding section we emphasize theoretical, methodological, and practical implications of the revised framework.

Introduction to Geographic Information Systems (GIS), the Metropolitan Council, and MetroGIS

Technological innovations in recent decades have produced powerful web-based geospatial mapping tools that can help a variety of groups solve problems and achieve ambitious goals. Users of the tools might be, for example, nonprofits or governments seeking to combat public health problems or a business entrepreneur wanting to corner new markets. Yet putting together a mapping system that draws on expertise and databases of multiple organizations (at multiple levels of government and across sectors) remains a challenging endeavor for leaders like those who were central to the creation and continuation of MetroGIS under the sponsorship of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council.

Geographic Information Systems

Maps, of course, have been used throughout human history to visually represent geographic space, the elements making it up, and the relationships among the elements. The creation of an analogical space representing a larger geography is one of the great accomplishments of human history, on par with the development of language and numeracy (Robinson, 1982). Maps are crucial to knowing where anything is and to navigating between points; to assertions of sovereignty and the rights and duties of those under the sovereign power; to understanding amounts, capacities and/or flows of various things (land, water, weather, traffic); to establishing ownership and the legitimacy of real property exchanges; and to a host of other purposes. Maps typically are two-dimensional,

5 but represent three-dimensional spaces. They also can be three-dimensional, as in globes; or four-dimensional via time-lapsed presentations.1 Since the 1960s, it has become possible to produce digitized geospatial information in order to create computerized maps (models) and to format, reformat, and analyze them using various analytic tools. Geographic information systems (GIS) are computerized models containing digitized, manipulable, and geospatially referenced data. In principle, with a GIS you can study not just this map or that map, but every possible map. With the right data, you can see whatever you want – land, elevation, climate zones, forests, political boundaries, population density, per capita income, land use, energy consumption, mineral resources, and a thousand other things – in whatever part of the world interests you (Ormsby, et al., 2004, p. 2).

In a GIS, the maps are made up of layers (think of the zoom feature on Google Earth). Each layer consists of features (cities, jurisdictions, tracts of land) and/or surfaces (lakes, land uses, snow cover). Each geographic object in a layer is called a feature, but not all layers contain features (e.g., the ocean layer may just be a single expanse which changes from place to place in terms of depth). The features have shapes and sizes, while the surfaces have values (elevation, slope, temperature, depth). Features have specific locations identified by coordinate systems and can also be displayed at different sizes (scales) (Ormsby, et al., 2004, pp. 2 – 10). Google Maps (www.maps.google.com) is the best-known GIS. Each year it includes more and increasingly accurate data, including geospatially referenced video feeds. Automobiles increasingly feature onboard GIS systems as standard equipment to assist with navigation; most include voice directions.

The Metropolitan Council (MC) The Metropolitan Council (MC) was created in 1967 to be the regional planning and coordinating agency for the Minneapolis-St. Paul region of Minnesota. It formally sponsors MetroGIS and has assumed primary responsibility for the system. The Minneapolis-St.Paul region since the 1960s has experienced many of the same problems as other metropolitan centers in the U.S. and other “developed” nations. Integrative leaders in the region responded by creating over many years regional government structures –especially the MC – that increased the capacity of local, state,

6 and federal governments to tackle regional public problems (Bryson and Crosby, 1992; Metropolitan Council, 2007). The council works with local communities to provide the following services (http://www.metrocouncil.org/about/about.htm):  operating the region's largest bus system  collecting and treating wastewater  engaging communities and the public in planning for future growth  providing forecasts of the region's population and household growth  providing affordable housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income individuals and families  providing planning, acquisitions and funding for a regional system of parks and trails  providing a framework for decisions and implementation for regional systems including aviation, transportation, parks and open space, water quality and water management. The MC’s governing board consists of 17 members, 16 of whom represent a geographic district and one chair who serves at large. They are all appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the governor. At present, the MC has staff of 3,700 and an annual operating budget of about $700 million, 90 percent of which is funded by state appropriations and user fees such as wastewater treatment charges and transit fares. Ten percent comes from local property taxes. The bulk of the MC’s employees operate the region’s transit and regional wastewater treatment systems. While the council had accomplished many things since its establishment, by the 1990s regional officials and planners were still struggling to have timely, accurate, reliable and comparable geospatial information about local conditions so they could: understand the contours of transportation, housing, open space, and waste treatment challenges; generate solutions that were more finely tuned to local and regional realities; and build the coalitions needed for necessary policy changes and resource allocation choices. Said differently, in any democratic society based on the rule of law, accurate, timely, geospatially referenced information is absolutely necessary for effective governance, planning, and coordination; the MC had for years produced information, but it was often based on imprecise estimates and projections.

7 MetroGIS grew out of the efforts of a group of public officials and managers, along with partners in other sectors, to remedy this shortcoming. They sought to create a shared GIS for the region that linked and made easily accessible business, government and nonprofit databases of accurate, timely, standardized, and needed information; and acquired or developed the software applications to make use of the data to solve public problems. These leaders practiced integrative leadership as they strove to improve multiple governments’ capacity for public problem-solving around a host of issues affecting the Twin Cities metropolitan region, including urban traffic congestion, economic development, affordable housing, threats to water availability and quality, provision of parks and other recreational opportunities, waste management, and crime. Regional capacity building may be seen as more a management than a leadership challenge. Yet, government structures and tools often are simply inadequate to allow government agencies to carry out responsibilities and partner effectively with other organizations (Kettl, 2009; Osborne, 2010). Developing these structures and tools can be a major integrative leadership challenge – and certainly was in the MetroGIS case.

MetroGIS This article’s illustrations trace efforts of MC administrators and appointed officials, along with several county commissioners and others, to develop a sustainable cross-governmental, cross-sector system for sharing detailed geographic information (for example, exact location of land parcels, streets, sewer and utility lines) across numerous jurisdictional boundaries. MetroGIS is now 14 years old and involves 300 governmental units, businesses, and nonprofit organizations (www.metrogis.org). The organization’s small coordinating staff is housed in the MC. Its policy board consists exclusively of government representatives, but its management-level coordinating committee and technical advisory team consist of members representing a variety of units of government, businesses, and nonprofits. The data on which these illustrations are based come from several sources: archival research, including a review of materials on the MetroGIS website; an unpublished written history of MetroGIS; individual interviews with ten leaders involved in MetroGIS’s founding and subsequent development; one group interview with five

8 knowledgeable MetroGIS leaders; and participant observation by the second author in the build-up to, facilitation of, and follow-up to both major MetroGIS strategic planning efforts.2 MetroGIS is now nationally and internationally recognized as one of the best GIS organizations in the world. Its accomplishments include, among other things (http://www.metrogis.org/about/accomplishments/index.shtml):  Implementing, or making substantial progress on implementing, regional solutions for nine of the MetroGIS community's thirteen priority information needs: jurisdictional boundaries; street addresses/where people live; parcels/parcel identifiers; highway and road networks; census boundaries; lakes, wetlands, water courses; land cover; and planned land use.  Implementing MetroGIS DataFinder as a registered node of the Federal National Spatial Data Infrastructure, fully integrated into the State of Minnesota's GIS, with a state-of-the-art downloading capability (DataFinderCafé). Over 200 datasets are currently accessible via DataFinder. Over 800 data downloads per month occur and the trend is a steady increase.  Implementing (in conjunction with the State of Minnesota’s Land Management Information Center [LMIC]) GeoService Finder, a resource for finding geospatial applications and web services.  Executing agreements that provide access by all government interests serving the seven-county metropolitan area, without fee and subject to identical access requirements, to parcel and other geospatial data produced by all seven metro area counties and the MC.  Receiving several state, national and international awards for innovation.  Maintaining active involvement of key stakeholder representatives at the policy, management, and technical levels since MetroGIS's inception in 1995.

The road to these achievements has been a long and not necessarily easy one. The journey began when Rick Gelbmann, an MC manager, concluded in the mid-1990s that the time had come to improve the system the MC used to develop projections about the future development of Twin Cities communities. Local planners like Randall Johnson of

9 Shoreview (a St. Paul suburb) were complaining that the projection system’s methods were not sufficiently based on local data and as a result the council’s projections were unreliable. Meanwhile, new technology for more precise local data gathering was becoming available. Gelbmann persuaded Richard Johnson (no relation to Randall Johnson), deputy administrator of the MC, to seek approval from the council members for creation of a small internal unit to explore the possibility of creating a multi-county GIS. The unit was to undertake the necessary planning to define what a metro GIS would include, how it would operate, and how it would be financed. Randall Johnson was hired to head the unit and in 1995 he and his staff organized two regional forums that involved county officials, GIS experts, MC staff, and representatives of cities, school districts, water management organizations, the regional mosquito control district, park boards, and the Metropolitan Airport Commission. The forums produced consensus that local governments were ready to cooperate with the council in setting up and maintaining a geographic information system. Randall Johnson soon became a determined champion of developing a system that was technically advanced, met local and regional government needs, and helped the region become an example of how pooled geospatial information could be used to foster wise development and improve public services. In December 1995, Johnson and his staff worked with faculty at the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs (including this paper’s second author) to conduct a Strategic Planning Forum that included 18 representatives of government, nonprofit and business organizations. The author facilitated a strategy mapping session (Bryson et al., 2004) that helped the group agree on a set of strategic issues for the GIS effort, elements of a mission statement, a statement of intent to pursue creation of a shared system, and a set of what came to be called “strategic projects.” Interviewees agreed that the strategy mapping session was a signal event in the creation of MetroGIS. In April 1996, a formal mission statement, goals, guiding principles, five strategic projects (called Strategic Initiatives), and an initial organizational structure were created and agreed by key stakeholders, including the formally established Coordinating Committee and the MC. In other words, what had been several strategic “matters of concern” involving direction, organization, and governance evolved into “matters of fact”

10 (Latour, 2005, p. 22). The original, officially approved mission of MetroGIS grew directly out of (meaning much of the language was taken directly from) the strategy mapping exercise. The original mission was: “To provide an ongoing, stakeholder- governed, metro-wide mechanism through which participants easily and equitably share geographically referenced data that are accurate, current, secure, of common benefit and readily usable. The desired outcomes of MetroGIS include: improved participant operations; reduced costs; and support for cross-jurisdictional decision making” (www.metrogis.org/about/history/mission.shtml). Many persons interviewed for this article commented on the importance of the guiding principles for developing and sustaining the organization across many different kinds of boundaries. Many noted the principles are frequently referred to, and are clearly – even emphatically – inclusive, participatory and democratic. Interviewees also emphasized the importance of tapping and creating shared knowledge and understanding. The principles are as follows (slightly modified in recent years from the original) (http://www.metrogis.org/about/index.shtml#principles):

 Pursue collaborative, efficient solutions of greatest importance to the region when choosing among options.  Ensure that actively involved policy makers set policy direction.  Pursue comprehensive and sustainable solutions that coordinate and leverage resources: i.e., build once, make available for use by many.  Acknowledge that the term “stakeholder” has multiple participation characteristics: contributor of resources, consumer of the services, active knowledge sharer, potential future contributor, potential future user, continuous participant, and infrequent participant.  Acknowledge that funding is not the only way to contribute: data, equipment and people are also valuable partnership assets.  Rely upon voluntary compliance for all aspects of participation.  Rely upon a consensus-based process for making decisions critical to sustainability.

11  Ensure that all relevant and affected perspectives are involved in the exploration of needs and options.  Enlist champions with diverse perspectives when implementing policies and carrying out activities.

The key stakeholders also established the MetroGIS Coordinating Committee that would guide the system’s development. The Coordinating Committee agreed to undertake five design projects:  eliciting endorsements from stakeholders  executing data and cost-sharing agreements  implementing an Internet-based data search and retrieval tool  identifying common information needs  creating a business plan and organization structure.

By the end of 1996, the group had obtained substantial stakeholder buy-in. Eleven key stakeholder organizations had adopted resolutions endorsing creation of MetroGIS and designated a representative for the MetroGIS Policy Board that was created to set policies for the system. The policy board consists of public officials from the MC and counties, as well as associations of local governments (municipalities, school districts, watershed districts). Victoria Reinhardt, a member of the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners, became chair. (St. Paul is in Ramsey County.) The Coordinating Committee became more formalized, and David Arbeit, director of the state’s Land Management Information Center (LMIC), was elected as chair. Other members, including Will Craig, a GIS expert at the University of Minnesota, provided early and continuing leadership within the committee. A Technical Advisory Team also was established. Staff secured preliminary data-sharing agreements with representatives of metro area counties and other data producers, and they began efforts to identify common information needs. During the next four years the MetroGIS staff, the technical advisers, the Coordinating Committee, and the Policy Board worked hard to put together more permanent data and cost-sharing agreements and to establish rules and standards for data

12 collection and dissemination. An important product was the DataFinder Internet tool, which provided a quick data search and retrieval mechanism for MetroGIS partners. When a University of Minnesota team assessed the benefits of MetroGIS during this period, it found that the system had given stakeholders easier access to useful data, fostered better communication among GIS users across the region, and increased trust in sharing geographic information with the user community (Craig & Bitner, 1999). The MC hired a consulting firm to produce a business plan for sustaining the system through 2003. The plan, which built on the findings of the university assessment, was approved by the Policy Board and the MC; it identified priority functions, projected costs, and outlined long-term funding issues. By 2001, MetroGIS was attracting favorable attention from national GIS advocates and policy makers. It received a federal grant to improve the DataFinder website. Victoria Reinhardt was appointed to the board of the National GeoData Alliance created by the U.S. Department of the Interior. During the next six years, the project leaders focused on improving and further institutionalizing the system. To improve the ability of the DataFinder to respond to user needs, a consultant team solicited input from users, state agencies, and the US Geological Survey. The expanded tool allowed much more customized usage. A working group of MetroGIS stakeholders and a consultant also developed a performance measurement program. Additionally MetroGIS came up with “endorsed regional solutions” for the 13 highest priority information needs of the region and established mechanisms for quick distribution of relevant data during emergency and homeland security events. During this period, MetroGIS had to survive a major challenge from within the MC to its continued existence via the program evaluation audit. According to MetroGIS Policy Board Chair Virginia Reinhardt, the organization had been called on to justify its existence as a public entity by MC decision makers; when a program audit found that MetroGIS produced benefits far in excess of its costs, the challenge disappeared (Virginia Reinhardt interview 2008). In June 2006, the MC endorsed MetroGIS and guaranteed its continued existence. By 2006, the system had won national and international recognition for its accomplishments. Its leaders recognized that now that the system was on a solid footing, they should plan for the next five years. They convened stakeholders once again to

13 consider new technological opportunities and growth dynamics for the region. In 2007, system managers and policy makers participated in a Strategic Directions Workshop, again facilitated by this paper’s second author, in order to continue providing public value and be a leader in using geographic information systems to meet public needs. An expanded mission for the system and new goals and strategies emerged from the workshop (and from further consultations). The new mission is: “…to expand stakeholders' capacity to address shared geographic information technology needs and maximize investments in existing resources through widespread collaboration of organizations that serve the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area” (www.metrogis.org). The new mission represents a significant change from the previous mission and helps MetroGIS “go to the next level” (Randall Johnson, personal communication 2007; Group interview 2008). Previously the purpose of the organization was to create a mechanism for sharing GIS information. The new mission states the purpose is to expand stakeholders’ capacities to address GIS needs, maximize investments in existing resources, and foster widespread collaboration of organizations – not just governments – that serve the metropolitan area. The interviewees agreed that the mapping process helped clarify for key MetroGIS stakeholders that the organization had outgrown its previous mission. In other words, mapping again made a difference – and was in essence an “actor” in its own right (Latour, 2005, p. 71). The mapping exercise also resulted in a focus on eight major activity areas for the next three to five years, beginning in 2008. The activities are as follows:  Develop and maintain regional data solutions to shared information needs  Expand endorsed regional solutions to include support and development of application services  Facilitate better data sharing through making more data available, having more uses, and improving processes  Promote a forum for knowledge sharing  Build advocacy and awareness of the benefits of collaborative solutions to shared needs  Expand MetroGIS stakeholders  Maintain funding policies that get the most efficient and effective use out of available resources and revenue for system-wide benefit

14 While collaboration may be necessary or desirable, the research evidence indicates that it is hardly easy (Agranoff, 2008; O’Leary and Bingham, 2009). The MetroGIS story fits this pattern. The organization has survived serious challenges over the course of its history, including particularly the concerted effort noted above by some within the MC to eliminate it. They argued that the GIS service should be provided by the business sector, or not at all. Additional controversies have not yet been settled. Some MetroGIS founders have moved on; others may soon, so the issue of leadership transitions is ongoing. In addition, cities are big users of data and applications, but are not major providers of them, so maintaining an equitable balance of benefits and contributions remains an important issue. Finally, one member county appears to be ambivalent about supporting development of applications and allowing participation by businesses.

A Framework for Understanding Leadership and the Creation and Maintenance of Cross-Sector Collaborations

In this section each part of the framework (see Figure 1) will be described theoretically and summary propositions will be offered, with illustrations as appropriate from the MetroGIS case. The parts are: initial conditions, processes and practices, structure and governance, contingencies and constraints, and outcomes and accountabilities. Integrative leadership involves leading across boundaries at individual, group, organizational, and broader levels. In this case, Randall Johnson, Richard Johnson, Victoria Reinhardt, Will Craig and other leaders had to work with their partners across individual, intra-organizational, inter-organizational and sector boundaries to create and maintain MetroGIS as a sustainable cross-sector collaboration that can help meet important public needs and advance the common good. To repeat, the illustrations are meant simply to ground the propositions and are not presented as part of a test of the propositions. Other views and examples will also be presented as appropriate. Insert Figure 1 About Here

15 In the framework, initial conditions are thought to affect directly both processes and practices and structure and governance. Processes and practices, on the one hand, and structure and governance, on the other hand, are seen as intimately entwined; as also affected by contingencies and constraints; and as also directly affecting outcomes and accountabilities. We also posit a direct effect of initial conditions on outcomes and accountabilities. The two-way linkage between processes and practices, on the one hand, and structures and governance, on the other, represents insights from structuration theory about how practices and structures are created and recreated through action (Giddens, 1979, 1984; Feldman, et al., 2006; Pentland and Feldman, 2008; Orlikowski, 2009). The framework also incorporates insights from actor-network theory (ANT) (Latour, 2005; Law and Hasard, 1999). Latour asserts that ANT takes as its challenge accounting for new associations – i.e., “the tracing of associations” (2005, p. 5, italics in original) – without a priori assuming any fixity to social aggregations. In other words, the “social” (e.g., existing and new data-sharing networks, communication patterns, stakeholder relations, coalitions, collaborations) is what must be explained, not assumed. Further, tracing associations also means accounting for connections among “things that are not themselves social” (loc. cit.); for example, strategy maps, plans, integrated computer networks, and worksites. “Association” includes far more than, for example, a communication link between nodes in a network. Associations may also be shared understandings, affective responses, identity-based or -forming linkages, agreements, commitments, resource flows, and host of other possible connections, including causal connections. In the article’s concluding section, we will say more about the aptness of structuration theory and ANT for studying leadership and cross-sector collaboration.

Initial conditions At the outset of a change effort, initiators confront the challenges of adapting leadership to context and making use of the talents of particular kinds of leaders to push the action forward (Crosby and Bryson, 2005). That is, they must pay attention to contextual forces that affect the change effort and they need to understand the people (including themselves) who bring assets and liabilities to the leadership work. They must seek sponsors of and champions for the change effort.

16 In terms of context, studies of cross-sector collaboration have emphasized the importance of system turbulence in general, and institutional and competitive forces in particular, in launching successful collaboration (Sharfman, Gray, and Yan, 1991; Bryson, Crosby, and Stone, 2006). Changing conditions provide a perturbation that offers opportunity for the system to re-organize (Burns, 1978; Senge 1990; Allen and Cherrey, 2000; Uhl-Bien, Marion, and McKelvey, 2007). Particularly important are institutional arrangements – political, economic, and social – that can aid or hinder collaboration. Effective integrative leaders must take account of these institutional arrangements, but also recognize that changing conditions within and outside the institutions can offer opportunities for new institutional arrangements. Leaders must demonstrate a kind of “systems thinking” (Senge, 1990; Senge, et al., 2008) in order to understand the turbulence as well as the driving and constraining forces. Systems thinking also involves seeing existing flows of information and other resources among relevant organizations, and noting where desirable flows are negatively constricted by intra-organizational, inter- organizational and sector rules and boundaries. A sense of links and gaps can help leaders think about who and what must be integrated (and perhaps dis-integrated). Randall Johnson and Rick Gelbmann demonstrated systems thinking in their ability to see connections among local government information needs and emerging technologies (the Internet and GIS) to address them. In a related vein, stakeholder identification and analysis efforts are also important in order to understand the political contours of the context: who has information and other resources (authority, technical expertise and commitment or enthusiasm) for tackling a public problem or championing a solution, and the what avenues for change are likely to garner sufficient stakeholder support (Luke, 1998; Bryson, 2004). Resources may show up in unlikely places, particularly in sectors with which one has least familiarity. In this case, political institutions offered the most important constraints and drivers. The fragmentation of local governments was definitely a constraint on efforts to build a unified geographic information system for the metropolitan area. At the same time, the MC had been established in the 1960s precisely to deal with problems that spilled across local government borders and affected the entire region; it had responsibility for planning major regional functions such as open space, transportation,

17 and sewer service. The council also had its own taxing authority. Still, it had relatively little power to force local governments to follow its guidance. Thus as Richard Johnson and GIS liaison Randall Johnson launched the MetroGIS project, they knew that obtaining local government buy-in was a must. Several forces drove the collaboration in this case – population growth in the metro area, increasing needs of local government for information about existing and future development as well as public services, and the availability of increasingly sophisticated GIS technology. In addition to local governments, utility companies, retailers and other businesses wanted more reliable information about growth trends in the region. These forces provided the “case” that metropolitan GIS advocates could use to justify asking for MC funds and staff to launch the effort. Moreover, if the advocates could convince local governments that the potential GIS system would be carefully designed to meet their needs, the basis for buy-in would be there. Significantly, there did not appear to be any potential competitors, particularly from the business sector. Proposition 1: Like all inter-organizational relationships, cross-sector collaborations are more likely to form in turbulent environments. Leaders will have more success at launching these collaborations when they take advantage of opportunities opened up by driving forces (including helping create or favorably altering them), while remaining attuned to constraining forces.

Cross-sector collaborations also appear to be fostered by recognition that no one sector can solve an important public problem on its own (Bozeman, 2007; Bryson and Crosby, 2008). In this case, neither the MC nor local governments had enough GIS expertise and money to establish their own full-fledged systems. Local government planners were increasingly frustrated by the inaccuracy of MC projections and the barriers to exchanging information with each other. Utility companies and other businesses were in a similar situation, and GIS technology firms did not have the authority, resources, or credibility to develop a unified regional system. Faculty and technical experts at the University of Minnesota had crucial skills for putting together such a system, but also lacked needed authority and funding. Leaders of the GIS effort recognized the need to involve stakeholders from multiple sectors to provide the necessary combination of skills, money, and expertise.

18 Proposition 2: Leaders are most likely to try cross-sector collaboration if they believe that separate efforts by several sectors to address a public problem have failed and the actual failures cannot be fixed by a separate sector alone.

Linking mechanisms – such as existing cross-boundary groups or organizations, and general agreement on the problem to be solved – also contribute to the formation of cross-sector collaboration (Bryson, Crosby, and Stone, 2006). In this case, local governments, MC staff, and university faculty had worked together in the past on a number of tasks. At the university, geography and planning faculty in particular had played a strong role in making the case for regional governance, planning, and geospatial information gathering. Of course, the relations between local government and the MC weren’t always smooth, since local governments sometimes viewed the MC as attempting to impose its will on them. Nevertheless the GIS advocates were able at the outset to assemble a small group of local government partners who did share a general agreement that they needed the ability to gather data and information systematically across the region. One GIS partner commented, “Many of us felt a common need, so it was easier to reach a common vision.” In spite of the common rhetorical emphasis on public-private partnerships, the literature seems to indicate that sector boundaries between governments and nonprofits (including academic institutions) may be easier to bridge than those between government and business (Salamon, 2002). Part of the difficulty is inherent in the popular label “public” sector, which is usually applied to government, but also occasionally to nonprofits, and its contrast, “private sector.” The contrast presumes conflict as much as it might imply the need for cooperation to solve public problems. The deeper challenge appears to be the competing “institutional logics” between government and business (Friedland and Alford, 1991). Though Randall Johnson has been fairly successful in involving technical experts from for-profit enterprises, the Policy Board has been somewhat stymied about how to give businesses full-fledged access to the system. An important part of the analysis of initial conditions should include looking for individuals who can exercise personal leadership – that is, deploying personal assets and structural position to lead change efforts. Major change efforts are unlikely to get off the ground and prosper unless at least one committed champion and one committed sponsor

19 support them (Crosby and Bryson, 2005). By champion we mean a person who is a tireless, process-savvy organizer and promoter of the change effort; in contrast, a sponsor is less involved in the process, but deploys authority, money, or connections to move the change effort forward. For example, Richard Johnson deployed his formal authority to gain MC members’ support for the project. Randall Johnson played a champion role by bringing planning expertise, political savvy, and enthusiasm to the project. Both sponsors and champions will need to see the problem as significant and capable of solution or remedy, but they should not be too wedded to specific problem definitions or solutions or they may not be able to engage in the collaborative problem- solving process required to enroll diverse stakeholders in the effort and set directions likely to result in widely beneficial changes (Nutt, 2002; Huxham and Vangen, 2005). Champions (or a set of champions as a group) are especially likely to need to be multi- lingual translators as they seek to bridge differing organizational and practice cultures (Carlile, 2004), and will need to be seen as legitimate across camps (Maguire, Hardy, and Lawrence, 2004). Randall Johnson had been a local planner and critic of MC projections, so he could speak the language of local planners and be seen as a legitimate champion of better regional solutions that addressed local needs and concerns. In short, he could work well with policy makers, planners, and technical personnel. Will Craig brought legitimacy as an academic GIS expert at the university who was able to translate technical “GIS-speak” to more general audiences. Other champions also played important translator roles across various boundaries. In some ways this case represents a classic case of policy entrepreneurs taking advantage of a window of opportunity (Kingdon, 1995; Roberts and King, 1996; Crosby and Bryson, 2005). Demand for change was spreading among local governments, technological advances made change attractive, and the right people were in positions with the authority to provide needed approvals and resources, which they did. Proposition 3: Cross-sector collaborations are more likely to succeed when one or more linking mechanisms, such as powerful sponsors and champions, general agreement on the problem, or existing networks are in place at the time of their initial formation.

Integrative processes and practices

20 A process is a series of linked actions or proceedings. A practice incorporates process, but is also a contextually situated, socially accomplished flow of organizational action. Practices may be seen as “a flow of organizational activity that incorporates content and process, intent and emergence, thinking and acting, and so on, as reciprocal, intertwined and frequently indistinguishable parts of a whole when they are observed at close range (Jarzabkowski, 2005, pp. 7 – 8, 11). Important integrative processes and practices include: wise design and use of forums, arenas, and courts, including creating effective boundary-spanning groups, boundary experiences, and objects; building leadership capacity; forging agreements; building trust; and building legitimacy. Wise design and use of forums, arenas, and courts. Forums, arenas, and courts are the characteristic settings we humans use to create and communicate meaning (in forums), make and implement decisions (in arenas), and enforce principles, laws, and norms (in courts) in shared-power situations where no one person or group is fully in charge (Crosby and Bryson, 2005, pp. 401-426). No one is wholly in charge in forums, arenas, and courts, either, since they involve sharing power, albeit power that is hardly ever shared equally (Flyvbjerg, 1998). Nonetheless, these settings have a huge impact on action, because the ideas, rules, modes, media, or methods that are design features of the settings serve to divide what is conceivable in terms of a set of potential decisions, issues, conflicts, and policy preferences, into those that are actually observed, and those that are sent off into a kind of public policy “never-never land” as non-decisions and non issues, latent or covert conflict, and unsupported policy preferences (Bachrach and Baratz, 1962, 1963; Luke, 1974; Flyvbjerg, 1998). For example, if your issue or decision item does not get on the agenda of a formal arena, the issue becomes a non-issue and the decision becomes a non-decision, at least for the present. As practices, the three settings make it possible for actors to draw on collective, structurally based rules and resources to produce actions that (typically epiphenomenally) recreate the underlying rules and resources, albeit often in modified form. In keeping with structuration theory, practices and structures are created and recreated through action. Structures are only “instantiated” through action and otherwise do not exist; there is thus a “duality” to structures as both the product of action and the basis for further action (Giddens, 1984).

21 Our previous research indicates that the design and use of forums in which shared meaning is created may be more important than the design and use of arenas or courts when it comes to public problem-solving, because the design and use of forums determines what is even considered a public problem, what solutions are viable, and what public programs, projects, and policies are discussed by policy makers (Crosby and Bryson, 2005). The creation and communication of shared meaning may be seen as the primary work of visionary leadership. Integrative leaders will need to help stakeholders within single organizations and from different organizations and sectors develop at least partially shared meanings and understandings of past and present conditions and a desirable future – in other words, a shared vision – if they are to agree on and implement new projects, programs, and policies that advance the common good (Kouzes and Posner, 2007; Morse, this issue). We discuss below how wise design and use of forums in different phases of a change effort provide cross-boundary groups with cross-boundary experiences typically involving the creation and use of boundary objects. Cross-boundary groups (boundary groups for short) are “collections of actors who are drawn together from different ways of knowing or bases of experience for the purpose of coproducing [cross-]boundary actions” (Feldman, et al., 2006, p. 95). Examples include cross-boundary networks, task forces, and teams; coordinating committees; and representative policy making bodies. MetroGIS is perhaps best understood as a set of practices involving boundary groups. In other words, as a completely voluntary assembly of over three hundred member organizations who, in theory, can walk away whenever they wish, MetroGIS is essentially a “virtual organization” (Randall Johnson, interview, 2007; group interview, 2008). Members stay, in essence, because the benefits of belonging to the cross-boundary groups exceed the costs. The Policy Board, Coordinating Committee, and Technical Advisory Team are all boundary groups, operating mostly as forums, with each member representing a different organization. As they become formalized, structured and institutionalized, boundary groups become cross-boundary organizations, which MetroGIS has essentially become, and in that regard belongs in the structure category discussed below. Adeptly designed forums allow boundary groups to have boundary experiences, defined as “shared or joint activities that create a sense of community and an ability to

22 transcend boundaries among participants” (Feldman, et al., 2006, p. 94; Feldman and Khademian, 2007). Boundary experiences are important for helping participants develop a shared perspective that they then can act upon (Boland and Tenkasi, 1995). MetroGIS was forged out of many such experiences involving diverse participants and elements and continues because of the self-conscious design and use of such experiences. Indeed, cross-boundary stakeholder involvement has been a hallmark of MetroGIS forums. Johnson’s office has reached out to several businesses, including the major retailer Target, land planning and engineering firms, software companies, and The Lawrence Group (consultants that handle street data). Commenting on some of the forums, a participant said, the “sessions really helped me to understand other people’s concerns and needs and many of the major issues.” Boundary objects are typically important in helping people create shared meaning (Star and Griesemer, 1989). Boundary objects are “physical objects that enable people to understand other perspectives” (Feldman, et al., 2006, p. 95). Beyond that, boundary objects can facilitate the transformation of diverse views into shared knowledge and understanding (Carlile, 2002, 2004). Of particular importance in the MetroGIS case is the creation and use of shared strategy maps (Bryson, et al., 2004) by key stakeholders at the two strategic planning forums. The strategy maps produced at both forums were viewed by interviewees as extremely important for the development of MetroGIS. Designing and using arenas and courts also mattered in the MetroGIS case. Each participating organization’s decision makers, which often meant a decision-making body (i.e., arena), had to authorize participation. The MetroGIS Policy Board does establish policy and emphasizes consensus-based decision making. The MC members have periodically had to formally endorse MetroGIS and allocate resources to the effort. By emphasizing consensus-building and developing broad support, MetroGIS has sought to make it easy for formal decision makers to say yes when necessary. Said differently, throughout the creation and maintenance of MetroGIS, integrative leaders needed to achieve desired decisions from policy-making arenas, such as the MC, county boards, and city councils. Thus they were careful to link forums to arenas, so that consensus- based dialogue and deliberation preceded formal decision making, meaning that interests were aligned in such a way that member organizations would continue to participate after

23 formal, authoritative decisions were made. Especially important was the inclusion of local public officials in forums, because they ultimately had to approve their city’s or county’s participation in the data-sharing system. The proposed system gained legitimacy in these officials’ eyes because they were helping to shape it and because they had a chance to know the MC staff who would implement it. Victoria Reinhardt, as Policy Board chair and Ramsey County commissioner, and Randy Johnson (no relation to the other Johnsons), as Policy Board member and Hennepin County commissioner, were politically savvy and powerful as representatives of the region’s most populous counties. (Hennepin is the county that contains Minneapolis.) Randall Johnson and Richard Johnson also had honed their understanding of how to influence policy makers during many years of experience in government agencies. In terms of courts, MetroGIS obviously must abide by the law, and formal courts have reinforced the MC’s authority when it has been challenged in lawsuits (Bryson and Crosby, 1992). Perhaps the most important court has been the informal court of public opinion. The guiding principles mentioned earlier act as strong norms guiding and sanctioning behavior in relation to MetroGIS. As noted, many interviewees commented on the importance of the norms for guiding MetroGIS’ work and the interactions among participants in that work. Another important role for formal and informal courts is helping integrative leaders resolve residual conflicts that remain after policy makers have approved new policies and projects that must still be implemented. Integrative leaders will need to employ sanctions that reward those who act in accord with the new policies and penalize those who don’t. In the MetroGIS case, the sanctioning process appears to have been fairly informal. If a true cost-sharing system had been introduced, some means of penalizing those who didn’t pay would have been important. The court of public opinion could be important in bringing pressure to bear on local governments that fail to participate in the system. Sanctions that could be imposed by the formal courts also are important. For example, Metro GIS designers have had to make sure that data-sharing did not violate privacy rights that would be enforced by formal courts. Proposition 4: Cross-sector collaborations are more likely to succeed when sponsors, champions, and other leaders pay careful attention to the wise design

24 and use of forums, arenas, and courts, including the creation of helpful boundary groups, experiences, and objects.

Forging agreements. Informal agreements about the collaboration’s composition, mission, and process can work (Donahue, 2004), but formal agreements have the advantage of supporting accountability. The need for different types of initial agreements and reworking of agreements are likely to increase as collaborations grow to include more geographically dispersed partners and diverse actors within a problem domain (Kastan, 2000). Possible elements of formal agreements include: broad purpose, mandates, commitment of resources, designation of formal leadership, description of eligible members, decision-making structure, and built-in flexibility (such as allowing waivers) for dealing with local conditions and changes (Crosby and Bryson, 2005; Arino and de la Torre, 1998; Page, 2004). When partners do not completely agree on a shared purpose, they may be able to agree on next steps (Huxham and Vangen, 2005). Studies of collaboration highlight the importance of a drafting process that is highly participatory and involves key stakeholders and implementers (Page, 2004, and this issue). Less powerful partners may have more difficulty than others in advocating for their interests in this process, though leaders can use several techniques to equalize power (Crosby and Bryson, 2005; Ospina and Foldy, this issue). In the MetroGIS case, there were a series of “initial” agreements. Randall Johnson’s office organized two regional forums in 1995 simply to explore the need for a multi-county GIS unit. The inclusion of the University’s Center for Urban and Regional Affairs and the State’s Land Management Information Center as forum sponsors added legitimacy to the gatherings and communicated the important message that this effort was not just Randall Johnson’s or the MC’s initiative. As noted earlier, the forums attracted numerous local government officials and staff, but also a broad array of people from the sponsoring organizations and other interested parties. Johnson posed two main questions to the participants: Should interested parties pursue a regional data-sharing system? Should the MC take the lead? Participants said yes to both. The result was that Johnson’s office had a general mandate to proceed with exploring creation of a metropolitan GIS, many more stakeholders knew about its potential benefits, and some local officials were

25 primed to support it. Johnson emphasized that “asking for permission and getting buy in at the beginning” were very important for laying the foundation for the ultimate success of the GIS system. Proposition 5: The form and content of a collaboration’s initial agreements, as well as the processes leaders use to formulate them, will affect the outcomes of the collaboration’s work.

Planning. Two contrasting approaches to planning have been associated with successful collaboration. One emphasizes deliberate, formal planning that includes careful articulation of mission, goals and objectives; roles and responsibilities; and phases or steps, including implementation (Mattessich, Murray-Close, and Monsey, 2001). This “deliberate” approach (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel, 1998) seems most likely when collaboration is mandated. In the second approach, a clear understanding of mission, goals, roles, and action steps emerges over time as conversations involving individuals, groups and organizations grow to encompass a broader network of involved or affected parties (Winer and Ray, 1994; Huxham and Vangen, 2005). This “emergent” approach (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel,1998) seems most likely when collaboration is not mandated. Regardless of approach, careful attention to stakeholders clearly is crucial for successful planning (Bryson, 2004; Page, 2004), and the process should be used to build trust and the capacity to manage conflict effectively (Bryson, 2004). Planning is more likely to be successful if it builds on the competencies and distinctive competencies of the collaborators, including those arising from the distinctive sectors in which they operate (Bryson, Ackermann, and Eden, 2007). The MetroGIS official history divides its development into three main phases (www.metrogis.org/about/history/index.shtml): a definition phase from 1995 to 1996, a design phase from 1997 through 2001, and an implementation and transition phase from 2001 to the present. (Note that even though MetroGIS put the implementation label on the last phase, we should point out that some major implementation activities occurred during the design phase, as is true of most strategy change efforts. In other words, implementation rarely waits until all the planning has occurred [Mintzberg, 1994; Bryson, 2004]). MetroGIS’s use of planning in the three phases exhibited characteristics of deliberate as well as emergent planning, both of which seem to be needed in successful

26 cross-sector collaborations (Bryson, Crosby and Stone, 2006). While major forums usually involved emergent thinking – in other words, consensus on directions and next steps emerged from the forum activities – the Coordinating Committee did more deliberate planning, for example, by adopting a mission statement and four goals for the MetroGIS during the definition phase. Early on, after the two large regional forums in 1995, Richard Johnson supported Randall Johnson’s belief that the next step should be a visioning and strategic planning process from which a possible vision, mission, and strategic options might emerge. The exercise would involve a wide array of potential GIS stakeholders. So Johnson went ahead in the face of some skepticism from vocal participants in the regional forums. The first major event in this process was the December 1995 Strategic Planning Forum. Participant numbers were at a level that easily permitted participation by all, and the University of Minnesota facilitators used a method called “strategy mapping,” to help the group reach consensus on strategic issues and an initial agreement on how to keep working together. The group brainstormed and categorized a number of ideas in response to three questions: 1. What might a metropolitan GIS do? 2. How might those things be done? 3. And, what would result, or what would the consequences be, if those things were done? The result was dozens of ideas written on cards, posted on a flipchart-sheet covered wall, and linked by arrows indicating what might lead to what. Out of the array of possibilities, the group agreed on a potential mission of a metro GIS, what its goals should be, and what major strategies and actions should be pursued to achieve the goals. After further discussion and refinement, the Coordinating Committee adopted by consensus a MetroGIS mission statement, goals, guiding principles and a set of “strategic initiatives” to guide subsequent work. The strategy map the group produced was a boundary object that quite literally helped guide development of MetroGIS over the next decade and more; a reduced version of the map was posted above Randall Johnson’s desk the entire time.

27 Also important was the willingness of MetroGIS leaders to plan anew once the system had been institutionalized. The 2007 Strategic Directions workshop, another major boundary experience, laid the groundwork for potential expansion and restructuring of the system. Proposition 6: Leaders are more likely to guide cross-sector collaborations to success if they help participants combine deliberate and emergent planning, with deliberate planning probably being emphasized in mandated collaborations and emergent planning probably being emphasized in non-mandated collaborations. Proposition 7: Leaders of cross-sector collaborations are more likely to succeed if they ensure planning processes include stakeholder analyses, emphasize responsiveness to key stakeholders, use the process to build trust and the capacity to manage conflict, and build on the competencies and distinctive competencies of the collaborators.

Managing conflicts. Conflict in a collaboration emerges from the differing aims and expectations that partners bring to a collaboration, from differing views about strategies and tactics, and from attempts to protect or magnify partner control over the collaboration’s work or outcomes. The mission of the collaboration may also affect levels of conflict. For example, if the collaboration is mainly planning for systems change, versus agreeing on how to deliver a service, the level of conflict may be higher (Bolland and Wilson, 1994). Furthermore, Gray (1996) has found that power issues, as prime sources of conflict, vary by phases. As groups try to agree on the nature of the problem that concerns them, they are likely to argue about who gets to be at the table; as they debate approaches to solving the problem, they compete to shape the collaboration agenda and control information; once the implementation is underway, collaboration members may seek to maximize their authority, influence. and control of resources. Proposition 8: Because conflict is common in partnerships, cross-sector collaborations are more likely to succeed if leaders use resources and tactics to help equalize power, to avoid imposed solutions, and to manage conflict effectively.

In the MetroGIS case, the forums provided opportunities for people with different views of information-sharing problems and solutions to champion their ideas and come to agreement. Some solutions were discarded and others survived. Probably the most significant conflict that GIS advocates faced was the issue of which entities would fund

28 the system and to what extent. Various groups developed recommendations for how costs would be shared among the MC, local governments, and other users. While recommendations were being developed over several years, the system was funded by the MC, which awarded grants to local governments to help cover their costs of participation. (The GIS unit also obtained some federal grants for its work). At one point a federally funded study produced a well-researched “fair-share” funding model that would have introduced subscriber fees for government agencies and access fees for other users. Local government partners resisted paying, however; they argued that paying for innovative regional systems was really MC’s responsibility. Ultimately the Policy Board decided that a shared funding model was not feasible, so the council continued to be the system’s main funder. In effect, the Policy Board has decided that retaining local government participation is far more important – because of its direct impact on the mission – than making participants pay, a less important resource question related to implementation. Thus the decision was smart given the interest of maintaining the partnerships and pursuing its mission, but it has made the system over-reliant on continued support from MC members and top administrators and posed barriers for charging business users. Building leadership. Collaborations provide multiple roles for formal and informal leaders (e.g., Agranoff and McGuire, 2003). Examples of formal leadership positions are: co-chairs of a steering committee, coordinator of a collaborative, and project director. To be effective, these people need formal and informal authority, vision and long-term commitment to the collaboration, integrity, and relational and political skills (Gray, 1989; Waddock, 1986; Crosby and Bryson, 2005). As noted earlier two key leadership roles are “sponsors” and “champions” (Crosby and Bryson, 2005). The parceling out of formal leadership positions is often a means of obtaining buy-in by collaborating partners; partners that do not obtain these positions may require other assurances their interests will be taken into account (Alexander et al., 2001). The development of informal leadership throughout a collaboration is likely to be especially important, since participants often cannot rely on clear cut, easily enforced, centralized direction. To cope with the predictable turnover of leaders, collaborating partners should prepare successors and build in ways to sustain the collaboration during changes in leadership (Alexander et al., 2001; Merrill-Sands and Sheridan, 1996).

29 Proposition 9: Cross-sector collaborations are more likely to succeed if they have committed sponsors and effective champions at many levels who provide formal and informal leadership. In MetroGIS, the multitude of forums provided settings in which many people could exercise informal leadership, especially by contributing to the development of a shared vision for MetroGIS. The creation of several cross-boundary governance and working groups expanded opportunities for people to move into formal leadership roles. Interviewees said staff, elected officials, and nongovernmental people provided enthusiastic and persistent leadership. Said one, “People with various strengths and experience all chipped in.” Another noted the importance of consistency over the long term: “People stayed involved.” Victoria Reinhardt served as chair of the Policy Board from its beginning through summer 2009. Randy Johnson, the commissioner representing Hennepin County on the Policy Board, is another long-serving member and consistent supporter. Several interviewees singled out the extended service of Randall Johnson as a process champion who applied his expertise in planning methods and kept “energy focused on the vision.” Randall Johnson described a high level of rapport among some of the leaders, to the point that “[w]e’re able to finish each other’s sentences.” The MetroGIS leaders also became active in federal efforts to build geospatial data systems. They used the MetroGIS experience to contribute to and shape the national effort and brought ideas back from the national forums they attended. Building trust. Trusting relationships are essential to facilitating the work of collaboration and they hold the collaboration together, but collaborating partners initially may not fully trust each other. Thus trust-building is an ongoing requirement for successful collaborations (Ring and Van de Ven, 1994; Huxham and Vangen, 2005). Trust can comprise interpersonal behavior, confidence in organizational competence and expected performance, and a common bond and sense of goodwill (Chen and Graddy, 2005). Collaboration partners build trust by sharing information and knowledge and demonstrating competency, good intentions, and follow through; conversely, failure to follow through and unilateral action undermine trust (Merrill-Sands and Sheridan, 1996; Arino and de la Torre, 1998). For example, Huxham and Vangen (2005) emphasize the effectiveness of achieving “small wins” together as a trust-building practice. Successive accomplishments, large and small, over the course of MetroGIS’ history appear to have

30 been based in part on a certain amount of trust, but also appear to have built a substantial amount trust in the organization, its leadership, its decision making, and its other practices. Proposition 10: Cross-sector collaborations are more likely to succeed if leaders make sure that trust-building activities (including nurturing cross-sector understanding) are continuous.

Building legitimacy. Any organization seeking to acquire resources necessary to survive must build legitimacy through making use of structures, processes, and strategies that are deemed appropriate within its institutional environment (Suchman, 1995). Yet networks or organizations, especially newly formed ones, may have difficulty being perceived as legitimate by external stakeholders and even partners. Human and Provan (2000) argue that to be successful networks must have legitimacy as an organizational form, as a particular entity and as a mode of interaction. Our data indicate that MetroGIS appears to be viewed as legitimate by members on all three scores. Proposition 11: Leaders of cross-sector collaborations are more likely to succeed if they establish with both internal and external stakeholders the legitimacy of collaboration as a form of organizing, as a separate entity, and as a source of trusted interaction among members.

Structure and Governance Structure typically refers to elements such as goals, specialization of tasks and division of labor, rules and standard operating procedures, and designated authority relationships. The need for organizations to both differentiate and integrate across components is a common structural tension (see, for example, Scott 1987; Bolman and Deal 2008). Within the collaboration literature, structure has not attracted the same degree of interest as processes and practices, because researchers have mainly attended to the process of collaborating, in contrast to more formal structural arrangements. Yet structure and process typically do interact in collaborations, as is clear in the MetroGIS case. MetroGIS leaders worked to integrate new and existing organizational structures into a network that encouraged and facilitated data sharing across participating organizations. Key existing structures were the MC and local governments. Key new

31 structures were the MetroGIS Policy Board, Coordinating Committee, Technical Advisory Team, and multiple working groups. In accord with structuration theory, the new governing and operational structures emerged somewhat organically from the various planning processes, but MetroGIS leaders made sure that they were in tune with the existing local and regional government decision-making structures. In other words, the action that created the new structures also recreated the existing local and regional structures. Thus having local elected officials constitute the membership of the Policy Board was wise. Rotating the chair of the Coordinating Committee between information users and producers has been effective, according to one interviewee. Creating a GIS unit within MC certainly helped institutionalize the operation. Establishing the MC as the lead agency in the GIS network also helped ensure resources would flow for the work and placed ultimate policy-making authority at the regional level, where it made most sense. Structural arrangements. Scholars point out that the structure of a collaboration is influenced by context, including system stability and availability of resources (Van de Ven and Walker 1984; Provan and Milward 1995; Human and Provan, 1997). For example, changes in government policy often destabilize systems or alter resources in the policy fields in which networks are embedded and hence re-arrange the structure of ties among members (Sharfman, Gray, and Yan 1991; Stone 2004). For example, if the MC chose not to continue core funding for MetroGIS, the collaboration’s survival would be in question. The strategic purpose of a network or partnership also appears to affect structure. Agranoff and McGuire (1998) distinguish policy or strategy-making networks from resource exchange and project-based networks. They find that differences in purpose are related to the composition and size of networks. According to this schema, MetroGIS is mainly a policy-making network that facilitates resource exchanges among member organizations. Specific projects typically involve subsets of the network, although the project’s results (e.g., a new dataset or application) will be shared with the entire network. Membership in governance groups reflect these distinctions: Elected policy makers and one appointed official make up the Policy Board, managers from member

32 organizations make up the Coordinating Committee, and technical specialists from member organizations make up the Technical Advisory Team. Randall Johnson calls MetroGIS a “virtual organizaton” consisting of voluntary, rather than legally binding arrangements. Johnson noted that a consultant had recommended using a formal joint powers agreement (i.e., a legal agreement among governments allowing the signatories to exercise jointly powers that they are allowed to exercise singly), but the Policy Board has decided against that option because negotiating such an agreement with so many government partners would be cumbersome and such an agreement would leave out non-governmental entities, which would become “step- children” in the enterprise. While the voluntary nature of the participation in MetroGIS has had its strengths, at least one interviewee argued that a more formal joint powers agreement might have helped overcome local governments’ reluctance to contribute funds to the system. Regardless, MetroGIS demonstrates perhaps more dramatically than most organizations how action is necessary to create and recreate the organizational structure. Proposition 12: Collaborative structure – and therefore leadership effectiveness – is influenced by environmental factors, such as system stability and the collaboration’s strategic purpose. Astute leaders will ensure that the structure of the collaboration is flexible and adaptive enough to deal with system shifts and accomplish strategic purposes.

Furthermore, structures are likely to fluctuate because of ambiguity and complexity inherent in collaborations (Huxham and Vangen 2005). For example, participants and outsiders may be unclear who the members of a collaboration are, and whether these members represent themselves, their organization, or a particular identity group. Membership turnover may be especially important when powerful players such as top elected officials leave, join, or alter their level of involvement in the collaboration (Crosby and Bryson 2005; Kastan 2000). This ambiguity is exacerbated when individuals and organizations are members of multiple and overlapping partnerships. Proposition 13: Collaborative structure – and therefore the effectiveness of particular leaders – is also likely to change over time due to ambiguity of membership and complexity in local environments. Astute leaders will recognize these dynamics and plan for incorporation of new members and for leader succession.

33 Governance. In order to survive and accomplish its goals, a collaboration must have means of setting policies, coordinating activities, and monitoring outcomes. Provan and Kenis (2005) have identified three main types of governance structures for collaborations: 1) self-governing structures with decision-making through regular meetings of members or through informal, frequent interactions; 2) a lead organization that provides major decision-making and coordinating activities; and, 3) a network administrative organization which is a separate organization formed to oversee network affairs. Which form is appropriate depends on factors such as network size and degrees of trust among members. MetroGIS is in some ways a combination of all three types: While it is not completely self-governing, it certainly acts with considerable autonomy within its broad remit from the MC, and there is a network administrative unit, though it is not wholly separate from the MC, either.The unit also acts as something of a lead organization and focal point for coordinating decision-making and activities. Proposition 14: Leadership is crucial in matching governing mechanisms to context appropriately; subsequently, governing mechanisms, at both formal and informal levels, are likely to influence collaboration effectiveness, and consequently the effectiveness of network leadership.

The effectiveness of collaborative structures and governance mechanisms islikely to be affected by the process by which they are developed (Huxham and Vangen, 2005). In the MetroGIS case, the phased nature of the planning process seems to have helped the collaboration develop successfully. Early on, the Coordinating Committee adopted a set of guiding principles, a mission statement, and goals that supplied a framework for the system’s governance and operation. Additionally, MetroGIS leaders were very careful to develop structured agreements about information-sharing, uniform standards, and cost- recovery. Beyond that, the phased development of the various governance and operating structures was a means of bringing in more and more stakeholders as well as providing opportunities for many people to take on leadership roles. The phasing in of different committees over time provided important flexibility, but stability stemmed from the tendency of many key leaders to stay involved over many years. In other words, a set of reasonably coordinated actions brought into being a new organization – now something of an institution – that provides the base and resources for the next rounds of action.

34 Proposition 15: The process leaders follow to develop collaboration structures and governance mechanisms is likely to influence the effectiveness of the structures and mechanisms.

Contingencies and constraints As they develop integrative processes and structures, leaders must contend with several key contingencies. Four that seem to be particularly influential are: top-down versus bottom-up collaboration (Himmelman, 2002), type or level of collaboration, power imbalances, and competing institutional logics (Bryson, Crosby, and Stone, 2006). Collaborations are usually initiated in a top-down way (e.g., as a result of a formal government mandate, or as a condition of foundation funding) or in a bottom-up way (e.g., as a grassroots initiative of nonprofit organizations and community groups). Structures and governance mechanisms are more likely to be specified in advance in the case of top-down collaborations, and are more likely to be emergent in the case of bottom-up collaborations. MetroGIS was essentially a bottom-up collaboration in which structures and governance mechanisms emerged organically from extensive discussions in forums and strategic planning exercises. Proposition 16: Collaboration leaders are likely to have more leeway in designing structures and governance mechanisms in bottom-up collaborations, but those structures and mechanisms are likely to emerge more slowly than in top- down collaborations.

Cross-sector collaborations can occur at several levels, including system-level planning (as in the MetroGIS case), administrative activities (for example, shared staffing arrangements), and service delivery (Agranoff and McGuire, 1998; Alter, 1990). Of the three, system-level planning is likely to require the most negotiation between stakeholder interests and modes of operating; thus MetroGIS leaders’ heavy investment in processes and structures that helped carry out these negotiations made a lot of sense. Proposition 17: Leaders in cross-sector collaborations should tailor investment in negotiation among stakeholders to the level of the collaboration. Collaborations involving system-level planning activities are likely to involve the most negotiation, followed by collaborations focused on administrative-level partnerships, followed by service delivery partnerships.

35 Significant power imbalances among collaborating partners are likely to breed mistrust and thus prevent partners from easily agreeing on a shared purpose (Huxham and Vangen, 2005). In addition, over time a collaboration is likely to experience shocks that affect relations among partners, resources, and even the purpose of the collaboration. Tactics like strategic planning, scenario development, and conflict management training can help collaborations anticipate and shape future developments and manage shifts in power effectively (Bryson 2004). Clearly power imbalances were a factor in the MetroGIS case. The most populous counties had more resources at their command than less populous counties and municipal governments. Municipal governments varied tremendously in the size of their population and tax base. The MC had authority to develop plans for the region, but little power to force local governments and utilities to share their information about street addresses, electrical or gas lines, location of emergency services, or the like. This situation of fragmented and unequal power definitely required MC officials and staff to develop decision-making structures that gave powerful stakeholders the opportunity to be very influential while not excluding less powerful players. Meanwhile, GIS and planning specialists had the power of technical expertise needed to help build MetroGIS. MetroGIS leaders put some of these experts on staff, involved some in working groups, and hired others as consultants. The absence of a formal legal structure has de facto left considerable power with the MC. The MetroGIS is a relatively small part of the budget, which, along with the placement of the MetroGIS unit far down in the MC bureaucracy, can also make it a likely target for budget cutters. At the outset, Randall Johnson negotiated an understanding with Richard Johnson that allowed him direct access to the deputy administrator and Richard Johnson agreed to keep MetroGIS prominent in the eyes of council members. Such informal understandings, however, are vulnerable to changes in personnel; over time as new deputy administrators have come and gone, MetroGIS has had less access to the top. Proposition 18: Cross-sector collaborations are more likely to succeed if leaders build in resources and tactics for dealing with power imbalances and shocks.

36 Different institutions employ different meaning systems to establish formal and informal rules of operating and interpreting events (Friedland and Alford, 1991; Thornton and Ocasio, 1999). If leaders are to bring institutions from different sectors into effective collaboration, they are likely to have to reframe issues in ways that can appeal to the values and perspectives of the different institutions (Redekop, this issue; Morse, this issue). Competing institutional logics do not seem to have been a highly significant factor in the MetroGIS case, possibly because the bulk of the partners were from the government sector. We detected some clash between the logic of local government on the one hand and regional government on the other. Randall Johnson noted, for example, that one of the challenges has been to stop the tendency of local governments to charge users of parcel data as much as they could. MetroGIS-led negotiations finally helped local government representatives see the benefit of a uniform minimal price used by all of the region’s governments, because it increased the amount of data sharing and use across the system. Meanwhile, businesses being asked to provide information are understandably reluctant to share information that has market value and gives them a competitive advantage. Thus businesses considering participation in MetroGIS projects may need guarantees that they will control proprietary data bases and see direct benefits to their bottom lines. Proposition 19: Competing institutional logics are likely within cross-sector collaborations and may significantly influence the extent to which collaboration leaders can agree on essential elements of process and structure as well as outcomes. Astute leaders will reframe disputes in ways that can appeal across sectors.

Outcomes and Accountabilities Ultimately, integrative leaders are concerned about outcomes, both tangible and intangible. They want to be sure that their efforts actually result in sustainable projects and systems that contribute to the common good and create public value (Moore, 1995; Bozeman, 2007). In order to be sustainable, these projects or systems should build on many individuals’ and organizations’ self-interest. They should take advantage of different sectors’ strengths, while overcoming their characteristic weaknesses (Bozeman, 2007; Bryson and Crosby, 2008). For example, the government sector’s strengths in this case included the ability to produce good public data and concern with community well

37 being; its weakness was fragmented authority. Business sector strengths included the ability to produce good data for commercial purposes, as well as GIS software at attractive prices; its weakness was the need to make a profit. The academic sector’s strength was its research-based expertise; its weakness was a possible divorce from the world of practice. Proposition 20 Cross-sector collaborations are most likely to create public value if leaders design them (or help them emerge) in such a way that they build on individuals’ and organizations’ self-interests along with each sector’s characteristic strengths, while finding ways to minimize, overcome, or compensate for each sector’s characteristic weaknesses.

The success of cross-sector collaborations may be gauged at three levels: first-, second- and third-order positive effects (Innes and Booher, 1999). First-order effects are immediate results of the collaboration process. These would likely include the creation of social, intellectual, and political capital; high-quality agreements; and innovative strategies. Second-order effects are likely to occur when collaboration is well underway, and might include: new partnerships, coordination and joint action, joint learning that extends beyond the collaborative, implementation of agreements, changes in practices, and changes in perceptions. Third-order effects may occur much later. These might include new collaborations; more co-evolution and less destructive conflict between partners; results on the ground, such as adaptations of services, resources, cities, and regions; new institutions; new norms and social heuristics for addressing public problems; and new modes of discourse (Lawrence, Hardy, and Phillips, 2002). Gray (2000) offers a different, but complementary, list of outcomes: achieving goals, generating social capital, creating shared meaning, increasing interaction, and shifting the power distribution. In the MetroGIS case, several evaluation studies produced evidence that users valued and benefited from the system. One very important tangible outcome was the award-winning DataFinder website. Intangible outcomes included trusting relationships that could provide the basis for improved future collaboration among the partners. Also leaders helped attract national and international recognition that built legitimacy with local, regional, and possibly state decision makers. Today the MetroGIS also has an intangible “taken-for-grantedness,” which is a sign of its institutionalization (Suchman,

38 1995). In general this is an asset for the system, but it may also cause supporters to forget some of its vulnerabilities. Proposition 21: Cross-sector collaborations are most likely to create public value if leaders explicitly seek the production of positive first-, second-, and third-order effects.

Research studies suggest that “cross-sector collaborations are more likely to succeed when they have an accountability system that tracks inputs, processes, and outcomes; use a variety of methods for gathering, interpreting, and using data; and use a results management system that is built on strong relationships with key political and professional constituencies” (Bryson, Crosby, and Stone, 2006, p. 52). MetroGIS leaders oversaw implementation of a performance measurement plan that was put together by a working group consisting of MetroGIS stakeholders. The purpose was to document results and demonstrate prudent use of public resources. Measures focused on three main types of outcomes: those related to data users, those related to data producers, and more systemic outcomes – that is, improved decision making and better services. In the MetroGIS case, users demand results and improvements and provide peer pressure to ensure each other adheres to standards and does not undermine the system in other ways. Additionally, Randall Johnson monitors the system and if need be turns to members of the Policy Board to exert pressure on local governments that don’t follow through on commitments. At one point an MC official who opposed the system insisted that it be subjected to an audit aimed at demonstrating the system was a drain on MC resources. Victoria Reinhardt said MetroGIS people would welcome the audit and insisted that the process be transparent. Ultimately, the audit showed the MC was receiving a substantial return on its investment, and the system’s future became more rather than less secure.

Proposition 22: Cross-sector collaborations are more likely to be successful if leaders insist that there be an accountability system that tracks inputs, processes, and outcomes; use a variety of methods for gathering, interpreting, and using data; and use a results management system built on strong relationships with key political and professional constituencies.

39 Wise integrative leaders also will be sure to reassess the entire initiative once outcomes are clear. If the number of failures exceeds successes, they logically should consider substantial redesign or direct their energies elsewhere. To salvage as much from their efforts as possible, including relationships, they should be resilient, celebrate the successes, highlight learning from both successes and failures, and rally partners for future endeavors (Crosby and Bryson, 2005). In this case, the outcomes included many successes, but by 2007 MetroGIS leaders realized that enough shifts had occurred in the metro region that some redesign was merited and they organized the Strategic Directions Workshop. Proposition 23: Cross-sector collaborations are most likely to create public value if leaders demonstrate resilience and engage in regular reassessments.

Conclusions

Viewing the above propositions as a set leads to the unmistakable conclusion that creating and maintaining cross-sector collaborations presents a major integrative leadership challenge – because so much has to be in place or work well for them to succeed. This conclusion leads to a possibly unwelcome summary proposition: Proposition 24: The normal expectation ought to be that success will be very difficult to achieve in cross-sector collaborations, regardless of leadership effectiveness.

That said, success appears to depend in large part on leadership of many different kinds. We have highlighted in particular the leadership roles of sponsors and champions, but Huxham and Vangen (2005) argue that leadership – in the sense of what “makes things happen” (pp. 202-212) – also occurs through structures and processes. The leadership challenge in cross-sector collaboration may therefore be viewed as the challenge of aligning initial conditions, processes and practices, structures and governance mechanisms, contingencies and constraints, and outcomes and accountabilities such that good things happen in a sustained way over time – indeed, so that public value is created. Additional conclusions emerge both for theory, methodology, and practice. In terms of theory, the reasonable support in the literature for each of the propositions

40 presented implies some utility to using the proposed framework for understanding integrative leadership in cross-sector collaborative settings. A focus on leadership in relation to the framework categories seems to capture much that is of interest to understanding leadership and the creation and maintenance of cross-sector collaborations. The MetroGIS case illustration helps ground this assertion, but certainly does not provide a test of the framework’s utility. Future researchers who apply and test the framework might also make use of two social theories that appear particularly well-suited to the task of understanding the dynamics of leadership and cross-sector collaboration. Already mentioned is structuration theory, which provides a useful way of thinking about how actions and practices create, recreate, and stabilize the structures that then provide rules and resources to draw on and guide further action and collaboration (Giddens, 1984; Phillips, Lawrence, and Hardy, 2000; Sydow and Staber, 2002; Crosby and Bryson, 2005, pp. 401 – 426). As we have tried to show using the MetroGIS example, action and structure appear to be closely tied, with action creating and recreating structures that provide the base for action. Actor-network theory (ANT) is also particularly relevant. Latour (2005) offers the best introduction to ANT and contrasts ANT, or the “sociology of associations,” with the “sociology of the social.” As noted previously, Latour asserts that ANT takes as its challenge accounting for new associations – i.e., “the tracing of associations” (5, italics in original) – without a priori assuming any fixity to social aggregations, which he says the “sociology of the social” does. The “social” (e.g., existing and new networks, communication patterns, or cross-sector collaborations) thus is what must be explained, not assumed. Further, tracing associations also means accounting for connections among “things that are not themselves social” (loc. cit.); for example, strategy maps, Internet- based data networks, and software applications of GIS data. Note also that “association” includes far more than, for example, a communication link between nodes in a network. Associations may also embody understandings, affective responses, identity-based or -forming linkages; agreements, commitments, resource flows, and host of other possible connections. Further, the associations may be emergent, ongoing, or ending. In terms of methodology, ANT thus: (1) focuses on performances, (2) includes associations or connections with non-human elements or aspects of the situation, and (3) helps account

41 for how the ostensive aspects of any set of associations are produced, become stabilized and legitimized, or change, through strengthening or weakening associations, respectively (Feldman and Pentland 2008, 306). An application of ANT to MetroGIS and related leadership concerns is presented in considerable detail in Bryson, Crosby and Bryson (2009). Boundary experiences, groups or organizations, and objects also appear to be particularly useful categories for helping understand how cross-sector collaborations emerge and stabilize. The two MetroGIS strategy maps developed in 1996 and 2007, in particular, appear to have been actors in their own right, in the sense that they made a great deal of difference (Latour, 2005, p. 54 – 55). Regarding the 1995 strategy mapping effort, Randall Johnson would go so far as to claim, “We would be in a different place— maybe dead—without the mapping exercise. It enabled us to lock in very quickly on vision, goals, strategies and actions; get four teams organized and working right away; get the Coordinating Committee . . . It really helped people see the possibilities at a time when things easily could have fallen apart” (Randall Johnson 2008, personal communication). Other interviewees also commented on the importance of the strategy mapping session and the resulting map; they agreed it was a ‘‘turning point’’ (Group interview, 2008). Regarding the 2007 mapping exercise, Johnson and the group interviewees agreed that the mapping process and map (as an agent) led them to a new understanding that they had not started with, which consequently led to a new mission and set of strategic initiatives. Beyond that, MetroGIS itself may be thought of as a heterogeneous assembly of human and non-human actors and objects (Law, 1987; Latour, 2005). The role of non-human “actors” in collaboration clearly merits further study. Finally, while not explicitly a focus of our research into MetroGIS, the case interviews do indicate that at the individual level integrative leadership would seem to require cognitive, social, and behavioral complexity (Crosby and Kiedrowski, 2007; Mumford et al. 2000; Hooijberg, Hunt, and Dodge, 1997). MetroGIS leaders seemed to demonstrate such complexity, assisted by tools like mapping. One interesting aspect of MetroGIS is that its aim is to increase cognitive complexity of policy makers, planners, and service providers. It also increases social complexity – by forging stabilized and

42 expanding relationships. It may logically lead to behavioral complexity – that is, it may expand the users’ behavioral repertoire through helping them choose actions that are based on more complete and locally accurate knowledge, while recognizing impacts on other individuals, groups, and organizations in the network. This sometimes intentional, sometimes emergent drive toward increased complexity of many sorts may be characteristic of cross-sector collaborations and yet another explanation of why they can be so difficult to establish and maintain. In terms of methodology, the quest to understand and promote integrative leadership would benefit from carefully constructed comparative case study research that is longitudinal and includes qualitative and quantitative data. The complicated, multi- layered, multi-faceted, multi-actor, multi-sector nature of cross-sector collaboration probably will not reveal many of its secrets – and particularly those useful for practice – without more of this sort of research (Agranoff, 2007; Weber and Khademian, 2008; Yin, 2009). In terms of practice, the framework implies that successful integrative leadership for cross-sector collaboration should be thought of as a collective achievement. Integrative leadership at individual, group, organizational, and inter-organizational levels is required if cross-sector collaboration is to succeed. Our hope is that the framework, along with research that it may inspire, will lead to improved cross-sector collaborative practice and – through integrative leadership – the pursuit of the common good and creation of real public value.

Endnotes

1 Maps may also be of conceptual space, as in “strategy maps” (Kaplan and Norton, 2004; Bryson, et al., 2004). While in this paper we are focused on geographic space, note that two MetroGIS strategy mapping sessions discussed below apparently provided very important “boundary experiences” for participants and produced “boundary objects” – the strategy maps, which are of conceptual space – that helped guide subsequent collaboration efforts. 2 Information on MetroGIS is drawn from a variety of sources: A history of MetroGIS written by Timothy Delmont; archival records; the MetroGIS website; participant-observation; Bryson, Crosby and Bryson (2009); and especially from several interviews of Randall Johnson, MetroGIS staff coordinator for the MC,

43 and a lengthy, facilitated group interview of key actors over the course of MetroGIS’s existence: Victoria Reinhardt, Ramsey County (MN) commissioner and chairperson, MetroGIS; Terry Schneider, City of Minnetonka (MN) councilmember and member of the MetroGIS Policy Board; Nancy Read, technical coordinator of the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District and member and former chair of the Coordinating Committee; Jane Harper, principal planner for Washington County (MN) and member and former chair of the Coordinating Committee; and William Craig, associate director of the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs at the University of Minnesota and member and former chair of the Coordinating Committee.

References

Agranoff, R. (2007). Managing within networks : Adding value to public organizations.

Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Agranoff, R. (March 2008). Enhancing performance through public sector networks:

Mobilizing human capital in communities of practice. Public Performance &

Management Review, 31(3), 320-347.

Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2003). Collaborative public management: New strategies

for local governments. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (1998). Multinetwork management: Collaboration and the

hollow state in local economic development. Journal of Public Administration

Research and Theory, 8(1), 67-91.

44 Alexander, J. A., Comfort, M. B., Weiner, B. J., & Bogue, R. (2001). Leadership in

collaborative community health partnerhsips. Nonprofit Management and

Leadership, 12(2), 159-175.

Allen, K. E., & Cherrey, C. (2000). Systemic leadership: Enriching the meaning of our

work. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Altern, C. (1990). An exploratory study of conflict and coordination in

interorganizational service delivery systems. Academy of Management Journal,

33(3), 478-502.

Arino, A., & de la Torre, J. (1998). Learning from failure: Towards an evolutionary

model of collaborative ventures. Organization Science, 9(3), 306-325.

Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1962). Two faces of power. American Political Science

Review, 56, 947-952.

Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1963). Decisions and non-decisions: An analytical

framework. American Political Science Review, 57, 947-952.

Bingham, L. B., & O'Leary, R. (2008). Big ideas in collaborative public management.

Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

Boland Jr., R.J., & Tenkasi, R.V. (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking in

communities of knowing. Organization Science, 6(4), 350-372.

45 Bolland, J., & Wilson, J. (1994). Three faces of integrative coordination: A model of

interorganizational relations in community-based health and human services.

Health Services Research, 29(3), 341-366.

Bolman, L. G.,& Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and

leadership, 4th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic

individualism. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Bryson, J. M., Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2007). Putting the resource-based view of

strategy and distinctive competencies to work in public organizations. Public

Administration Review, (July/August), 702-717.

Bryson, J. M. (2004). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A guide

to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement (3rd ed.). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bryson, J. M., Ackermann, F., Eden, C., & Finn, C. (2004). Visible thinking: Unlocking

causal mapping for practical business results. NY: Wiley.

Bryson, J. M., & Crosby, B. C. (1992). Leadership for the common good: Tackling

public problems in a shared power world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bryson, J. M., & Crosby, B. C. (2008). Failing into cross-sector collaboration

successfully. In L. B. Bingham, & R. O'Leary (Eds.), Big ideas in collaborative

public management. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.

46 Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bryson, J. K. (2009). Understanding strategic planning

and the formulation and implementation of strategic plans as a way of knowing: The

contributions of actor-network theory. International Public Management Journal,

12(2), 172-207.

Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C. & Stone, M. M. (2008). Collaboration in fighting traffic

congestion: A study of Minnesota’s urban partnership agreement.

http://www.cts.umn.edu/Publications/ResearchReports/reportdetail.html?id=1714

Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B., & Stone, M. M. (2007). Successfully designing and

implementing cross-sector collaborations: A preliminary test of propositions from

the literature. Unpublished manuscript.

Bryson, J., Crosby, B., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-

sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration

Review, 66(s1), 44-55.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper Collins.

Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects

in new product developement. Organization Science, 13(4), 442-455.

Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative

framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5),

555-568.

47 Chen, B., & Graddy, E. A. (ARNOVA Conference, November 17-19, 2005). Inter-

organizational collaborations for public service delivery: A framework of

preconditions, processes, and perceived outcomes. Unpublished manuscript.

Chrislip, D. D. (2002). The collaborative leadership fieldbook: A guide for citizens and

civic leaders. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.

Chrislip, D. D., & Larson, C. E. (1994). Collaborative leadership: How citizens and civic

leadership can make a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cleveland, H. (1977). The third try at world order : U.S. policy for an interdependent

world. New York: Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies.

Cleveland, H. (1993). Birth of a new world: An open moment for international

leadership. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cleveland, H. (2002). Nobody in charge: Essays on the future of leadership. NY: John

Wiley.

Craig, W.J., & Bitner, D. (1999). MetroGIS benefits study. Unpublished Power Point

Presentation. Retrieved from

http://www.metrogis.org/benefits/studies/survey_1999_results.pdf

Crosby, B. C., & Bryson, J. M. (2005). Leadership for the common good: Tackling

public problems in a shared-power world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

48 Crosby, B. C., & Kiedrowski, J. (2007). Integrative leadership: Observations from a

university of minnesota seminar Series Paper presented at the International

Leadership Association Annual Conference, Vancouver, Canada.

Donahue, J. D. (2004). On collaborative governance. Boston: John F. Kennedy School of

Government, Harvard University.

Feldman, M. S., & Khademian, A. M. (2007). The role of the public manager in

inclusion. Governance, 20(2), 305-324.

Feldman, M. S., Khademian, A. M., Ingram, H., & Schneider, A. S. (2006). Ways of

knowing and inclusive management practices. Public Administration Review, 66, 89-

99.

Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2008). Routine dynamics. In D. Barry, & H. Hansen

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of new approaches in management and organization

(pp. 302-315). London, England: Sage.

Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. Chicago, IL: The

University of Chicago Press.

Friedland, R., & Alford, R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and

institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell, & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new

institutionalism in organizational analysis (). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of a theory of structuration.

Berkeley, California: University of California Press.

49 Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and

contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press.

Goldsmith, S., & Eggers, W. D. (2004). Governing by network: The new shape of the

public sector (1st ed.). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gray, B. (2000). Assessing inter-organizational collaboration: Multiple conceptions and

multiple methods. In D. Faulkner, & M. de Rond (Eds.), Perspectives on

collaboration (). London: Oxford University Press.

Gray, B. (1996). Cross-sector partners: Collaborative alliances among business,

government and communities. In C. Huxham (Ed.), Creating collaborative

advantage. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Himmelman, A. T. (2002). Collaboration for a change. Minneapolis: Himmelman

Consulting.

Hooijberg, R., Hunt, J. G., & Dodge, G. E. (1997). Leadership complexity and

development of the leaderplex model. Journal of Management, Vol. 23(3), 37-408.

Human, S., & Provan, K. (1997). An emergent theory of structure and outcomes in small-

firm strategic manufacturing networks. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2),

327-365.

50 Human, S., & Provan, K. (2000). Legitimacy building in the evolution of small-firm

multilateral networks: A comparative study of success and demise. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 45(2), 327-365.

Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of

collaborative advantage. New York: Routledge.

Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999). Consensus building and complex adaptive systems:

A framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American

Planning Association, 65(4), 412-423.

Jarzabkowski, P. (2005). Strategy as practice: An activity-based approach. London:

SAGE Publications.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). Strategy maps: Converting intangible assets into

tangible outcomes. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Kastan, J. (2000). School-based mental health program development: A case study of

interorganizational collaboration. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 25(5),

845-862.

Kellogg, K. C., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2006). Life in the trading zone:

Structuring coordination across boundaries in postbureaucratic organizations.

Organization Science, 17(1), 22-44.

Kettl, D. F. (2002). The transformation of governance : Public administration for twenty-

first century america. Baltimore,: Johns Hopkins University Press.

51 Kettl, D. F. (2009). The next government of the United States: Why our institutions fail us

and how to fix them (1st ed.). NY: W. W. Norton & Co.

Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York:

Harper Collins.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The leadership challenge (4th ed.). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. New York: Oxford University Press.

Law, J. (1987). Technology and heterogeneous engineering: The case of the Portuguese expansion.’’ In W. E. Bjiker, T. P. Hughes and T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technical systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Law, J., & Hassard, J. (1999). Actor network theory and after. Oxford, UK: Blackwell

Publishing/The Sociological Review.

Lawrence, T. B., Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (2002). Institutional effects of

interorganizational collaboration: The emergence of proto-institutions. Academy of

Management Journal, 45(1), 281-290.

Levina, N., & Orlikowski, W.J. (2009). Understanding shifting power relations within

and across organizations: A critical genre analysis. Academy of Management

Journal, 52(4), 672-703.

Light, P. C. (2002). Government's greatest achievements. Washington, D.C.: Brookings

Institution Press.

52 Linden, R. M. (2002). Working across boundaries: Making collaboration work in

government and nonprofit organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Luke, J. S. (1974). Power: A radical view. New York: MacMillan.

Luke, J. S. (1998). Catalytic leadership: Strategies for an interconnected world. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2004). Institutional entrepreneurship in

emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in canada. Academy of Management

Journal, 47(5), 657-679.

Mattessich, P., Murray-Close, M., & Monsey, B. (2001). Collaboration: What makes it

work. Saint Paul, Minn.: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.

Merrill-Sands, D., & Sheridan, B. (1996). Developing and managing collaborative

alliances: Lessons from a review of the literature No. 3). Boston, MA: Simmons

Institute for Leadership and Change.

Metropolitan Council. (2007). A bold experiment: The Metropolitan Council at 40 years.

St. Paul MN: Metropolitan Council.

Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning : Reconceiving roles for

planning, plans, planners. New York: Free Press.

Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B., & Lampel, J. (1998). Strategy safari: A guided tour

through the wilds of strategic management. New York: The Free Press.

53 Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University

Press.

Morse, R. S., Buss, T. F., & Kinghorn, C. M. (Eds.). (2007). Transforming public

leadership for the 21st century. Armonk, N.Y. : M.E. Sharpe.

Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., & Fleishman, E. A.

(2000). Leadership skills for A changing world: Solving complex social problems.

Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 11-35.

Nutt, P. C. (2002). Why decisions fail: Avoiding the blunders and traps that lead to

debacles. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

O'Leary, R., & Bingham, L. B. (Eds.). (2009). The collaborative public manager

Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C.

Ormsby, T., Napoleon, E., Burke, R., Groessl, C., & Feaster, L. (2004). Getting to know

ArcGIS (2nd ed. ed.). Redlands, CA: ESRI Press.

Osborne, S. P. (Ed.). (2009 forthcoming). The new public governance? New perspectives

on the theory and practice of public governance. London: Routledge.

Page, S. (2004). Measuring accountability for results in interagency collaboratives.

Public Administration Review, 64(5), 591-606.

Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys

of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

54 Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. (2007). Narrative networks: Patterns of technology

and organization. Organization Science, 18(5), 781-795.

Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. (2000). Inter-organizational collaboration and

the dynamics of institutional fields. Journal of Management Studies, 37(1), 23-43.

Provan, K., & Milward, H. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational network

effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems.

Administrative Science Quarterly., 40, 1-33.

Provan, K., & Kenis, P. (2005). Modes of network governance and implications for

public network management. Paper presented at the Eighth National Public

Management Research Conference, Los Angeles, Sept. 29-Oct. 1.

Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, Andrew H. (1994). Developmental processes of cooperative

interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 90-118.

Roberts, N. C., & King, P. J. (1996). Transforming public policy: Dynamics of policy

entrepreneurship and innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Robinson, A. H. (1982). Early thematic mapping in the history of cartography. Chicago,

IL: University of Chicago Press.

Scott, W. R. (1987). Organizations : Rational, natural, and open systems. Englewood

Cliffs, N.J.: Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-Hall.

55 Salamon, L. M. (Ed.). (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Senge, P. M., Smith, B., & Schley, S. L., Laur, J. (2008). The necessary revolution: How

individuals and organizations are working together to create a sustainable world.

New York, NY: Doubleday.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The leader's new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan

Management Review, (Fall), 7-23.

Sharfman, M. P., Gray, B., & Yan, A. (1991). The context of interorganizational

collaboration in the garment industry: An institutional perspective. Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 181-208.

Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, 'translations' and boundary

objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology,

1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420.

Stone, M. M. Toward understanding policy implementation through public-private partnerships:

The case of the community employment partnership.” Presented at the Association for

Public Policy Analysis and Management conference, October, 2004, Atlanta, GA.

Stone, M. M. (2007). Governance in collaborations: Toward a research framework.

Unpublished manuscript.

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches.

Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610.

56 Sydow, J., & Staber, U. (2002). Institutional embeddedness of project networks: The case

of content production in german television. Regional Studies, 36, 215-227.

Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency

of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing

industry 1958-1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801-843.

Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory:

Shfiting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. Leadership

Quarterly, 18(4), 298-318.

Van de Ven, Andrew H., & Walker, G. (1984). The dynamics of interorganizational

coordination. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(0), 598-621.

Waddock, S. (1986). Public-private partnership as social product and process. Research

in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 8, 273-300.

Weber, E., & Khademian, A. M. (2008). Managing collaborative processes: Common

practices, uncommon circumstances. Administration & Society, 40(5), 431.

Winer, M., & Ray, K. (1994). Collaboration handbook: Creating, sustaining, and

enjoying the journey. St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

57 Figure 1. A Framework for Understanding Leadership and the Creation and Maintenance of Cross-Sector Collaborations (adapted from Bryson, Crosby, and Stone, 2006, p. 45).

INITIAL CONDITIONS GENERAL ENVIRONMENT  Turbulence  Institutional and competitive forces

SECTOR FAILURE

DIRECT ANTECEDENTS  Initiators, sponsors, and champions  General agreement on the problem  Existing relationships or networks

PROCESSES AND PRACTICES STRUCTURE AND Formal and Informal  Design and use of forums, GOVERNANCE arenas, and courts Formal and informal  Forging initial (and  Membership subsequent) agreements  Structural arrangements  Planning  Governance mechanisms and  Managing conflict structures  Building leadership  Building trust  Building legitimacy

CONTINGENCIES AND CONSTRAINTS  Top-down or bottom-up collaboration  Type or level of collaboration  Power imbalances and shocks  Competing institutional logics

OUTCOMES AND ACCOUNTABILITIES OUTCOMES  Public value  First-, second-, and third-order effects  Resilience and reassessment ACCOUNTABILITIES  Systems to track inputs, processes, outputs, and outcomes  Results management system  Relationships with political and professional constituencies 58

Load more

  58

Copy Link