A Silent Cry for Leadership: Organizing for Leading (in) Clusters
Joerg Sydow*
Department of Management
Freie Universität Berlin
Boltzmannstr. 20
D-14195 Berlin, Germany
[email protected]
Frank Lerch
Department of Management
Freie Universität Berlin
Boltzmannstr. 20
D-14195 Berlin, Germany
[email protected]
Chris Huxham
Department of Management
U niversity of Strathclyde
199 Cathedral Street
Glasgow G4 0QU, United Kingdom
[email protected]
Paul Hibbert
Department of Management
U niversity of Strathclyde
199 Cathedral Street
Glasgow G4 0QU, United Kingdom
[email protected]
A Silent Cry for Leadership: Organizing for Leading (in) Clusters
ABSTRACT
Leadership research so far has neglected clusters as a particular context for leadership, while
research on networks and clusters has hardly studied leadership issues. This paper fills this dual gap
in the abundant research on leadership on the one hand and on networks/clusters on the other by
investigating leadership in photonics clusters from a structuration perspective. Apart from giving an
insight into the variety and patterns of leadership practices observed, the paper addresses the
dilemma that regional innovation systems such as clusters usually have a critical need of some kind of
leadership, but that neither individual nor organizational actors wish to be led. This dilemma can only
be ‘managed’ by organizing for leading (in) clusters in a certain way.
Keywords: shared and distributed leadership; critical perspectives on leadership; agency; strategic
leadership.
INTRODUCTION
Fred Fiedler (1967) was among the first to propose switching the focus of leadership research from the
traits or behaviors of leaders to the leadership situation. Despite countless attempts to pay more
attention to important properties of context since then, the study of leadership is still criticized for not
being sufficiently socially contextualized. Apart from the dominance of social psychological research
in this field, one reason is that leadership research tends to concentrate on the most immediate context
of those who lead and those who follow. That is, this research largely centers on leadership in groups
or organizations, neglecting socially more distant, ambiguous and complex contexts including national
cultures, ethnic communities, voluntary innovation communities and the now omnipresent interorganizational arrangements such as strategic alliances, supply networks, public-private partnerships,
or regional clusters and innovation systems. Hence, it comes as no surprise that a growing number of
leadership researchers call for approaches to leadership research that take wider contexts into account
(e.g. Osborn, Hunt, & Jauch 2002).
Regional clusters offer an opportunity to study leadership in a macro context which is timely for
several reasons. First and foremost, this form of organizing is on the rise. In their Cluster Initiative
Greenbook, Sölvell, Linqvist and Ketels (2003) discuss 238 cluster initiatives but suggest that they
represent only a tiny fraction of the picture, especially if emergent clusters are considered as well as
those that have been formally developed. Since the publication of the Greenbook the spread of this
particular form of organizing seems to have accelerated (Ketels, Linqvist & Sölvell 2006). Second,
regional clusters are extremely ambiguous and complex and may thus be indicative of future
leadership contexts. They are not only made up of numerous organizations from different “societal
spheres” (Giddens 1984), such as the economic and scientific, but often exhibit unclear boundaries.
Third, and to make the issue even more organizationally tangled, clusters or at least “networks in
clusters” (Sydow & Lerch 2007) may be strategically led by a “hub firm” (Jarillo 1988) or “strategic
center” (Lorenzoni & Baden-Fuller 1995). Sometimes, a “network administrative organization”
(Human & Provan 2000) may have been created specifically to support cluster leadership.
Interestingly, despite their network- or rather cluster-oriented role, these tend to be hierarchical
organizations. Finally, some distinct individuals may act as “cluster leaders” (Casson 2003), “cluster
entrepreneurs” (Feldman & Francis 2006), “cluster facilitators” (Ketels 2003), or “district champions”
(Zucchella 2006), adding another (potential) level of leadership to be considered.
Despite the prevalence of clusters, the obvious role of leadership in these social systems, and their
immense ambiguity and complexity (Huxham & Vangen 2005) from a leadership perspective, leading
(in) clusters has hardly been studied. The importance of social networks for leadership and leadership
research has, however, been acknowledged (e.g. Balkundi & Kilduff 2005), including the role of
cohesive boundaries and isolated brokerage (Fleming & Waguespack 2007). Extant research on cluster
leadership is negligible, but there is a small body of work addressing network leadership. Orton and
Weick (1990), for example, posit subtle, indirect forms of leadership as typical for what they term
“loosely coupled systems”. In addition, Feyerherm (1994) explores how leadership behavior
influences the convergence of cognitive frames used by participants in inter-organizational problem
solving. Huxham and Vangen (2000, 2005) emphasize the “doing of leadership” in collaborative
networks. Denis, Lamothe and Langley (2001) point to the need for “collective leadership” that,
however, due to the tendency of respective leadership constellations to disconnect, is fragile. Most
recently, Barden and Mitchell (2007) examine how leaders’ prior exchange experiences in networks
influence the likelihood of subsequent interorganizational exchange. None of these studies, however,
considers network leadership in the context of regional clusters. When, in turn, the term ‘leadership’ is
used in cluster contexts, even individual and organizational leadership are not distinguished (e.g.
Casson 2003; Zucchella 2006). Therefore, addressing both scholars as well as practitioners of
2
leadership and of clusters, in this paper we ask: who leads (in) clusters, how and under which
circumstances, and what are the particular challenges of this context? Given the current interest in
paradoxes and tensions in management practice (e.g. Huxham & Beech 2003; Sundaramurthy &
Lewis 2003), we explicitly seek dilemmas of this kind in addressing these related questions.
In order to do so, this paper first defines the two concepts central to our study: cluster and leadership.
This conceptual part of the paper, which draws upon a structuration perspective (Giddens 1984), is
followed by the presentation of the methodology for our empirical study, situated in important
photonics clusters in England, Scotland, Germany and the United States. From the empirical insights
gained in these clusters, we characterize leadership of and in clusters. These characteristics are
important, both for illuminating how leadership can be achieved, and for understanding the paradox of
why leadership is urgently needed but, at least in the cases studied, seldom coherently asked for. Thus
in the penultimate section, we identify and discuss a ‘silent cry’ for leadership. The paper concludes
with limitations of the present study and implications for future leadership and cluster research.
CLUSTER AND LEADERSHIP: CONCEPTS AND THEORY
The cluster concept is based upon earlier work on industrial complexes by Alfred Marshall (1890) and
later studies of industrial districts by Brusco (1982) and others, promulgated by Piore and Sabel (1984)
and later developed in industrial and regional economics (Porter 1990; Krugman 1991) and other
regional sciences (e.g. Asheim, Cooke & Martin 2006). According to Porter (1998: 197), “clusters are
geographic concentrations of interconnected companies, specialized suppliers, service providers, firms
in related industries, and associated industries in a particular field that compete but also co-operate.”
This prevalent conceptualization has received widespread criticism, particularly in relation to the
inadequate specification of central concepts like regional proximity or collaborative and competitive
linkages (Martin & Sunley 2003). However as Jacobs and de Man (1996) suggest, this very ambiguity
offers conceptual flexibility in the implementation of cluster policies, which might explain their
widespread application (Sölvell et al. 2003).
Despite all this confusion around the notion of clusters, ‘soft factors’ like a trusting atmosphere, free
information flow, and a collaborative milieu seem to be important for clusters (e.g. Malliat 1991;
3
Rosenfeld 1996). From a perspective that seeks to apply structurational concepts in empirical research
(Sydow & Windeler 1998), we relate to both these ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ structural properties of clusters as
social systems that are characterized by time-space relations but, at the same time, like other systems,
transcend time and space via social and, in particular, system integration (Giddens 1984).
Leadership is conceived here as individual and/or organizational action that “makes things happen”
(Huxham & Vangen 2000), often through influencing the actions of others. Whatever the concrete
objectives in a particular context, leadership in general aims at creating, producing, reproducing or
transforming – via these direct and indirect actions – a social order that, from a structuration
perspective, is always precarious and requires leadership as one “organizing activity” (Hosking 1988).
As a component of cluster management practices, leadership is conceived here as reflexive
structuration that, implicitly or explicitly, takes the immediate but also the wider historical, political
and cultural context of social practices into account. Importantly, these practices are not restricted to
activities located within an organization but can cut across organizational and even cluster boundaries.
Although located in social practices, not least management practices, leadership is more or less
reflexively attributed to individuals (or organizations) by either followers or third parties (Calder
1977; Bresnen 1995; Fairhurst 2007). Leaders are those who, more than others, influence social
constructions and (re-)structure social activities and relationships towards the production, reproduction
or transformation of a social order. From a structuration perspective, they are able to do so because
they have easier access to and/or a better command of organizational or, in this case, ‘cluster
resources’ such as public funding (an allocative resource) or a mandate to act as a cluster leader (an
authoritative resource). In consequence, leaders enjoy a higher status or a more central position
relative to others “in terms of their contributions to influence” (Hosking 1988: 152).
Cluster leadership that involves individuals and organizations is mainly based upon cluster rules and
resources and covers a broad range of activities, cuts across organizational and even network
boundaries, and often aims at mobilizing large numbers of organizations that – together with their
relationships – make up the regional cluster. Cluster leadership, as well as leadership in clusters
broadly, is most adequately described as relational leadership (cf. Uhl-Bien 2006). This is mainly
because of the networked character of (real) clusters. But even more importantly and in sharp contrast
4
to leadership in organizations, the notion of relational leadership in networks/clusters is of a genuinely
non-hierarchical nature crossing organizational boundaries.
A structuration perspective is able to consider how individual and organizational actions and these and
other structural properties of social contexts interplay in the process that can be comprehended as
leading (in) clusters. From this perspective that emphasizes the “duality of structure” (Giddens 1984),
leadership, like any action, necessarily relies on structures that – like relationships – are produced and
reproduced – and eventually transformed – by the very action that ‘makes things happen’ (Berends,
Boersma & Weggeman 2003). Structures, from this perspective, comprise not only resources (of
domination) that allow agents – as leaders – to powerfully intervene into ongoing practices but also,
following the more conventional understanding of structures, rules (of signification as well of
legitimation). An example of rules of signification in the cluster context would be shared views among
most cluster members about the cluster purpose, while an illustration of rules of legitimation would be
more or less shared norms about acceptable behavior in the cluster. Both kinds of rules only exist in
instantiations “in social practices or as memory traces orienting the conduct of knowledgeable human
agents” (Giddens 1984: 17), and enable and constrain agents’, not least leaders’ behavior.
Our structurationist analysis focuses on cluster rules and resources, and how they are enacted by
knowledgeable agents, including leaders, in specific locales via the modalities of structuration.
However, the structural properties of other, more ‘distant’ or ‘surrounding’ social systems such as
those of the national or regional innovation systems (e.g. Lundvall 1992; Cooke, Braczyk &
Heidenreich 2004) remain relevant as do those on the organizational or other more micro levels. Take
for instance, how alternative interpretations offered by a specific cluster leader are embedded and reembedded in the wider discourse on high-tech clusters in a national or even transnational context.
Nevertheless, since the structuration perspective emphasizes the recursiveness of social life, these
rules and resources, in particular cluster rules and resources, as well as the relationship patterns in (and
even across) clusters should not only be conceived as an important condition, but also as an outcome
and a medium of cluster leadership.
5
STUDYING LEADING (IN) CLUSTRES: METHODOLOGY
We studied the development of four photonics clusters at different times over a period of eight years
(2000-2007); all clusters studied are of major economic importance, not only for the regions they are
located in, but also for the global photonics industry. Photonics is an interesting high-tech field that
has recently gained a lot of political and economic attention; it is “the technology of the 21st century”
(Niehoff & Pearshall 2005) as industry insiders comment. Among other issues, we were interested in
the role of leadership practices in developing these four clusters. Our research methodology thus
adopts a multiple case study design (Yin 1994). Following Eisenhardt (1989), the purpose of our
multiple case study research is not theory-testing but rather theory-development or, in this case,
theory-differentiation and -specification. However, instead of following a purist grounded theory
approach (Glaser & Strauss 1967; Suddaby 2006), structuration theory – as indicated above – is used
for framing, structuring and interpreting the data. This process of guided induction has similarities to
other interpretive approaches such as research-oriented action research (Eden & Huxham 2006) and
organizational ethnography (Heracleous 2000; Weeks 2000; Humphreys, Brown & Hatch 2003).
Nevertheless it deviates from these by using the framework of a formal social theory that provides
highly sophisticated but extremely abstract concepts that need study object-related specification.
The four clusters were ‘selected’ in an emergent way as the study was not originally conceptualized as
comparative research. While two of the authors were already involved in an in-depth case study in
Berlin-Brandenburg (since 2000), the possibility of studying leadership arose when making a first,
rather rough comparison of this evolving photonics cluster with the world’s best-known photonics
cluster in Southern Arizona (in 2004). In 2005 the opportunity came up to extend the comparison to
two British clusters in Scotland and the West Midlands. At this point in time, the idea grew that the
study should, in particular, focus on leading (in) clusters. Whilst this ex post shift of study focus was
no problem in the Berlin-Brandenburg case (because of the extensive involvement of the two authors
in the cluster-building process as researchers and, sometimes, consultants, over a rather long period of
time), it caused some difficulties with regard to the Arizona case. These problems were overcome
through a second round of more leadership focused interviewing in late 2006 and early 2007.
6
Altogether 39 interviews were conducted with the directors or CEOs of very different types of
organizations in each of the clusters (see Table 1). Since most of these organizations (companies,
research organizations, consultancies) were fairly small, the data collected from the informant was
assumed to represent the view of the respective organization. In larger organizations we interviewed
those who spanned the boundary between the organization and the cluster. In most cases our
interviewees were either at one point in time or, more often, continuously actively involved in the
development of the cluster. In addition we interviewed representatives of the cluster organization in
each of the clusters: either the heads of the relevant optical industry associations (in Southern Arizona
and Scotland); or the heads of the network administrative organization (in the other two cases).
Starting from these, the interviewees were selected using a snowball method. However, in each of the
four cases we made sure that not only people from the centre but also from the periphery of the cluster
were interviewed in order to obtain a more valid picture of who leads who. The interviews were semistructured, took on average 90 minutes, and focused not only on leading (in) clusters but also on topics
like the origin and development of the cluster, the intensity of interaction in and the formal governance
as well as the boundaries of the cluster. Throughout the interviews the interviewees were encouraged
to give detailed examples. The broadness of the interview enabled us to analyze not only leadership
practices in their contexts in general, but also how leaders and followers perceive and describe
leadership in networks and clusters in particular. In order to give the interviewees a chance to bring up
the issue themselves, we avoided mentioning leadership in the first half of the interview.
In addition to the interviews, a broad range of documents (such as strategy papers, newsletters,
roadmaps, and reports) provided by cluster representatives were analyzed as background information.
Moreover, in all but one case (Scotland) it was possible to observe meetings and workshops. This
allowed us some helpful cross-validation.
--- Insert Table 1 about here --The interpretive methodology adopted in the analysis of the data was, within the limits of an emergent
comparative case study design, as far as possible, “sensitive to time-space constitution” (Giddens
1984: 286). Beyond this, it has similarities to the work of Hardy, Phillips and Lawrence (2003) in the
development of categories; and Lawrence’s (2004) process of iterative reflection in the development
7
of theory. Data from the research sites were abstracted and organized in categories, by using
structuration-filtered understandings of leading (in) clusters that focus on the role of cluster rules and
resources and regionalized locales – combined with some very basic concepts from leadership theory
and, in particular, from theory of leadership in collaborative networks. The development of categories
was stimulated by these theories but subjected to an iterative process of contestation and confirmation
in which we moved reflectively between the data and the developing concepts until a saturation level
was achieved (Suddaby 2006). Presenting all of the qualitative data involved in this process is
impossible in a short paper, but example ‘extracts’ have been selected to illustrate lines of argument.
COMPARING LEADERSHIP PRACTICES IN FOUR PHOTONICS CLUSTERS
The detailed analysis of our data reveals that individuals, and sometimes organizations, are recognized
as subjects and/or objects of leadership in the clusters studied (specific networks in those clusters were
also recognized but were not the primary focus of this study). It also shows that leadership practices in
clusters are concerned with motivating, involving, empowering, supporting, mobilizing, directing,
controlling, manipulating and so forth in order to make things – for instance a project-based
collaboration among cluster members – happen (Huxham & Vangen 2005). Nevertheless, leadership
in these contexts varies considerably. This variety comes as no surprise given both that the leading
actors – individuals as well as organizations – differ with regard to their leadership capacity and
capability and the regional clusters differ with regard to the contexts they provide. Instead of reporting
the differences in contexts and leadership practices (see, however, Table 2) here, we immediately turn
to the paradox we discovered in all four clusters and how it might be ‘managed’ effectively.
--- Insert Table 2 about here --THE SILENT CRY PARADOX AND ‘MANAGING’ IT VIA ORGANIZING
On the surface, despite this significant difference in leadership practices, the perceived need for
leadership per se seems to be evident, for example
“Yes [, there may be a lack of leadership]…. You can always say that with better or more
leadership, then things would be better.” (Large Firm Representative, Scotland).
However, one surprising outcome of the analysis is that, if not specifically prompted, discourse about
leadership did not feature in network or cluster talk at all. This was true for all clusters despite their
8
different profiles and corroborates the earlier finding by Huxham and Vangen (2000: 1162) that in
collaborative networks there is “very little spontaneous use of the term (‛leadership’)” (our emphasis).
In addition, where we were able to observe leadership in different locales, it was not mentioned. There
may be at least four reasons for this: leadership is completely absent in these systems; membership in
these regional innovation systems is only of marginal interest to an individual or an organization;
leadership, though potentially identifiable in a cluster, is somewhat invisible; or cluster members
simply do not like to talk about leadership and, in particular, about being led.
The first two reasons can be dismissed. With regard to the possible absence of leadership in clusters,i
we have demonstrated that leadership can indeed be identified in these systems. In relation to the
interest of members in such regional innovation systems, we have found that most of those
interviewed – including those at the periphery – have an interest in the cluster. The final two reasons
require more detailed consideration. With regard to invisibility, this does not necessarily evidence a
lack of (adequate) leadership but rather its hidden-ness behind structures. In all four cases, there was
some confusion about the boundaries of the cluster to be led, since these were not coterminous with
the relevant associations providing the legitimating framework for leadership in each case. There was
even more confusion about cluster governance in Arizona and Scotland, because the formal
organizations were set up to govern an industry rather than a regional cluster. In Berlin-Brandenburg
and the West Midlands, the formal organization was deliberately set up to represent the entire cluster.
In Berlin-Brandenburg, however, they have built cluster rules and used cluster resources – for
example, roadmaps and master plans which govern the inclusion and exclusion of particular firms –
that “mask” leadership interventions and, in this case, act as “substitutes for leadership” (Kerr &
Jermier 1978). Furthermore, in the West Midlands the introduction of more distributed governance
structures – such as special interest groups – may in the future lead to greater masking of leadership.
The apparent avoidance of talk about leadership in clusters may actually be strongly connected to the
invisibility issue. People, as previously argued, expect to see leadership enacted by individual persons,
but in clusters it is evidenced in different guises. Firstly, it is often enacted through cluster structures,
i.e. rules and resources. That is to say, leadership – as an organizing practice – becomes
institutionalized by being hidden behind structures. Even in the one case where there seemed to be
9
some recognizable individual leadership – in Arizona – this had the effect of both masking other forms
of leadership and removing the notion of leadership from the agenda; it was unquestioningly assumed
to be embodied in a charismatic individual, who was actually perceived as a facilitator rather than a
decision maker. Secondly, leaders, especially if successful, “make things happen” via the actions of
others, and thus are not credited with the outcomes. Finally, the partially emergent character of
leadership in these and other situations (see Fleming & Waguespack 2007) means that cluster
members are not in a position to articulate the actuality of leadership in familiar terms, or to have a
stable perspective on how things are made to happen. For example, the emerging distributed structures
in the West Midlands are only engaging and recognizable to those intimately involved, and they are
also processually indeterminate; they are therefore hard to describe for both of these reasons. Similar
observations could be made, to a degree, in relation to all of the clusters. This interpretation
corroborates the discovery of the adequateness of “covert leadership” (Mintzberg 1998) – rather than
absence of leadership – in managing professionals.
There may also be a tacit reluctance to verbalize issues of leadership. Cluster members – small and
medium-sized firms that generally make up the majority of organizations in clusters (including those
we studied) – usually lack a capacity for cluster leadership and may not like to talk about leadership
since they would thereby denote themselves as being led. Thus both the relative invisibility of cluster
leadership and the reluctance to discuss it, provide explanations for the paucity of leadership discourse
despite an underlying sense that cluster leadership is practiced and enhanced leadership would be
helpful. There is a ‘cry for leadership’, although it is a cry that generally remains silent:
“… the companies themselves will not manage this collective problem because everybody is too
much involved in his day to day business. Now, at the next ‘Networking Day’ all the facts need to
be put on the table for the first time and the next task really would be to nominate someone who is
in charge. Someone who needs to push this more.” (Small Firm Representative, Berlin).
Like every paradox or dilemma, the silent cry paradox is conceived of as involving seemingly
contradictory concepts that nonetheless co-exist in tension (Poole & Van de Ven 1989; Huxham &
Beech 2003). This paradox, which may characterize most regional clusters, can certainly not be
resolved, but has to be “managed” inside the system. As our data suggest, the dilemma can be dealt
with by adopting a style of leadership that actually is little visible, emphasizing the continuous
10
building, maintaining or institutionalizing of structures by avoiding direct ad-hoc interventions of
leading individuals or organizations into ongoing practices. This sounds like a new “one best way”
recommendation that falls back behind Fiedler’s (1967) contingency theory of leadership and other
approaches that highlight the importance of context. The immediate need for institutionalizing leadership, however, clearly depends upon contextual circumstances – and so do the degree and the means to
realize it. For instance, a comparatively old and established innovation system like the Southern
Arizona photonics cluster seems to be well advised to develop a somewhat more institutionalized and
differentiated approach to leading the cluster. Then the pronounced personal leadership of this cluster
could rely more on institutions and, thus, become a little more independent of the particular person
leading the cluster. In addition, it would be less difficult for any individual succeeding the present
charismatic leader who has built the region into one of the leading photonics clusters in the world over
a period of more than 15 years. On the other hand, institutionalizing cluster leadership in this case will
be particularly difficult, given the enduring scarcity of cluster resources.
CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS
This paper provides a first study of leading (in) regional clusters and, thereby, responds to recent calls
for leadership research in macro contexts. At the same time, it offers insights into network and, in
particular, cluster processes that have hardly been studied from a leadership perspective, not least
because they have been somewhat carelessly labeled as self-organizing (Cooke 2007). To both ends
leading (in) clusters has been conceptualized as reflexive structuration, introducing a fresh theoretical
lens to research on leadership in general; a lens that is particularly sensitive towards, first, structured
and structuring processes driven by leaders as knowledgeable agents and second, the multi-level
nature of such macro contexts. In addition, adopting a structuration perspective, sensitive to the
importance of social relationships, our work may inform emerging relational leadership theory (UhlBien 2006). More so than in other studies of leadership in macro contexts to date, the importance of
relationships has been acknowledged in this study. What is more, relationships are revealed not only
as an outcome, but also as a means of relational leadership, although admittedly there is also room for
considering a social network approach in this regard (see, however, Balkundi & Kilduff 2005).
11
In sum, our study shows that leadership practices in and of clusters are identifiable and that these vary
substantially in and across the four clusters investigated. More importantly, we have identified cluster
rules and resources that complement relationships as important points of reference for leading (in)
clusters. Taking these into account also ensures that leadership is not only conceived as being based
upon and targeting interpersonal relationships, as in most approaches to relational leadership to date,
but is also to be conceptualized as structurally embedded and structure-reproducing. Finally, and
perhaps most interestingly, we found a cry for leadership in clusters, because this potential was not
fully recognized in all four clusters. This ‘cry’, however, was only expressed silently, because
leadership is either executed in a more indirect and institutionalized way – via cluster structures – or
because most cluster members do not like to be led even when they feel that things should be made to
happen. Without doubt, this silent cry paradox makes the study of leading (in) clusters difficult. This is
particularly the case when the research is concerned to avoid producing another version of “leadership
romance” (Meindl, Ehrlich & Dukerich 1985), i.e. the tendency to idealize individual leaders at the
cost of their followers and their organizations and, thus, to attribute much greater influence on
outcomes to them as individuals than they truly have (see also Fairhurst 2007). However, while the cry
for leadership may usually be silent in clusters, this may change in times of crisis.
Our study of leadership processes and practices was confined to four photonics clusters in England,
Scotland, Germany and the United States. Although these are leading clusters in the field, the insights
gained may be limited to high-tech or science-based clusters that are, by their very nature,
characterized by rather intensive inter-organizational interaction. In order to inquire more into the
possible general applications of our findings, future research on leading (in) clusters, therefore, should
include clusters in other technological/organizational (including low-tech) fields. With regard to the
generalizability of the findings it may also be useful to compare leadership in high-tech clusters with
those in high-tech companies, which seem to provide different but similarly ambiguous, diverse,
dynamic, and complex contexts (Alvesson & Sveningsson 2003) but lack networks and clusters as
additional ‘layers’ in multi-level contexts.
12
REFERENCES
Alvesson, M. & Svenigsson, S. (2003) The great disappearing act: Difficulties in doing “leadership”.
Leadership Quarterly 14: 359-381.
Asheim, B.J., Cooke, P. & Martin, R. (2006) (Eds.) Clusters and regional development. London:
Routledge.
Balkundi, P. & Kilduff, M. (2005) The ties that lead: A social network approach to leadership.
Leadership Quarterly 16: 941-961.
Barden, J.Q. & Mitchell, W. (2007) Disentangling the influences of leaders’ relational embeddedness
on interorganizational exchange. Academy of Management Journal 50(6): 1440-1461.
Berends, H., Boersma, K. & Weggeman, M. (2003) The structuration of organizational learning.
Human Relations 56(9): 1035-1056.
Bresnen, M.J. (1995) All things to all people? Perceptions, attributions, and constructions of leadership. Leadership Quarterly 6(4): 495-513.
Brusco, S. (1982) The Emilian model: Productive decentralisation and social integration. Cambridge
Journal of Economics 6(2): 167-184.
Calder, B.J. (1977) An attribution theory of leadership. In Staw, B.M. & Salancik, G.R. (Eds.): New
directions in organizational behavior (pp. 179-202). Chicago: St. Clair Press.
Casson, M.C. (2003) An economic approach to regional business networks. In Wilson, J.F. & Popp, A.
(Eds.): Industrial clusters and regional business networks in England, 1750-1970 (pp. 19-43).
Aldershot: Elgar.
Cooke, P. (2007) To construct regional advantage from innovation systems first build policy platforms. European Planning Studies 15(2): 179-194.
Cooke, P., Braczyk, H.-J. and Heidenreich, M. (2004) (Eds.) Regional innovation systems. 2nd edition.
London: Routledge.
Denis, J.-L., Lamothe, L. & Langley, A. (2001) The dynamics of collective leadership and strategic
change in pluralistic organizations. Academy of Management Journal 44(4): 809-837,
Eden, C. & Huxham, C. (2006) Researching organizations using action research. In Clegg, S., Hardy,
C., Nord, W. & Lawrence, T. (Eds.) Handbook of Organization Studies, 2nd edition (pp. 388-408).
London: Sage.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review
14(4): 532-550.
Fairhurst, G.T. (2007) Discursive leadership. Los Angeles: Sage.
13
Feldman, M. & Francis, J.L. (2006) Entrepreneurs as agents in the formation of industrial clusters. In
Asheim, B., Cooke, P. & Martin, R. (Eds.): Clusters and regional development: Critical
reflections and explorations (pp. 115-136). London: Routledge.
Feyerherm, A.E. (1994) Leadership in collaboration: A longitudinal study of two interorganizational
rule-making groups. Leadership Quarterly 5(3/4): 253-270.
Fiedler, F.E. (1967) A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: MacGraw-Hill.
Fleming, L. & Waguespack, D.M. (2007) Brokerage, boundary spanning, and leadership in open
innovation communities. Organization Science 18(2): 165-180.
Giddens, A. (1984) The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity.
Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago, Ill.: Aldine DeGruyter.
Hardy, C., Phillips, N. & Lawrence, T.B. (2003) Resources, knowledge and influence: The organizational effects of interorganizational collaboration. Journal of Management Studies 40: 321-347.
Heracleous, C. (2000) An ethnographic study of culture in the context of organizational change.
Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 37: 426-446.
Hosking, D.M. (1988) Organising, leadership and skilful process. Journal of Management Studies 25:
147-166.
Human, S.E. & Provan, K.G. (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.
Humphreys, M., Brown, A. & Hatch, M. (2003) Is ethnography jazz? Organization 10: 5-31.
Huxham, C. & Beech, N. (2003) Contrary prescriptions: Recognizing good practice tensions in
management. Organization Studies 24(1): 69-93.
Huxham, C. & Vangen, S. (2000) Leadership in the shaping and implementation of collaboration
agendas: How things happen in a (not quite) joined up world. Academy of Management Journal
43: 1159-1175.
Huxham, C. & Vangen, S. (2005) Managing to collaborate. London: Sage.
Jacobs, D. & de Man, A.-P. (1996) Clusters, industrial policy and firm strategy: A menu approach.
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 8(4): 425-437.
Jarillo, J.C. (1988) On strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal 9(1): 31-41.
Kerr, S. & Jermier, J.M. (1978) Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 12(3): 375-403.
14
Ketels, C.H.M. (2003) The development of the cluster concept – Present experiences and further
developments. Paper download: http://www.isc.hbs.edu/pdf/Frontiers_of_
Cluster_Research_2003.11.23.pdf (July 12, 2005).
Ketels, C.H.M., Lindqvist, G. & Sölvell, Ö. (2006) Cluster initiatives in developing and transition
economies. Stockholm: Center for Strategy and Competitiveness.
Krugman, P. (1991) Geography and trade. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Lawrence, T. (2004) Rituals and resistance: membership dynamics in professional fields. Human
Relations 57: 115-143.
Lorenzoni, G. & Baden-Fuller, C. (1995) Creating a strategic center to manage a web of partners.
California Management Review 37(3): 146-163.
Lundvall, B.-Å. (1992) National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and
interactive learning. London: Pinter.
Marshall, A. (1890) Principles of economics: An introductory volume. London: Macmillan.
Martin, R. & Sunley, P. (2003) Deconstructing clusters: Chaotic concept or policy panacea? Journal of
Economic Geography: 3(1): 5-35.
Meindl, J.R., Ehrlich, S.B. & Dukerich, J.M. (1985) The romance of leadership. Administrative
Science Quarterly 30: 78-102.
Mintzberg, H. (1998) Covert leadership: Notes on managing professionals. Harvard Business Review
76(6): 140-147.
Niehoff, J. & Pearshall, T.P. (2005) Photonics for the 21st century. Consolidated Photonics European
Initiative. Brussels: VDI - The Association of German Engineers.
Orton, J.D. & Weick, K.E. (1990) Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of
Management Review 15(2): 203-223.
Osborn, R.N., Hunt, J.G. & Jauch, L.R. (2002) Toward a contextual theory of leadership. Leadership
Quarterly 13: 797-873.
Piore, M. & Sabel, C. (1984) The second industrial divide. New York: Basic Books.
Poole, M.S. & Van de Ven, A. (1989) Using Paradox to Build Management Theories. Academy of
Management Review 14(4): 562-578.
Porter, M.E. (1990) The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.
Porter, M.E. (1998) On competition. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press.
Rosenfeld, S.A. (1996) Overachievers: Business clusters that work. Prospects for regional
development. Chapel Hill, NC: Regional Technology Strategy, Inc.
15
Sölvell, Ö., Linqvist, G. & Ketels, C. (2003) The cluster initiative greenbook. Stockholm: Ivory
Tower.
Suddaby, R. (2006) What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal 49: 633-642.
Sundaramurthy, C. & Lewis, M. (2003) Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance. Academy
of Management Journal 28(3): 397-415.
Sydow, J., & Lerch, F. (with Huxham, C. & Hibbert, P) (2007) Developing photonics clusters –
Commonalities, Contrasts and Contradictions. Advanced Institute of Management (AIM)
Research, London.
Sydow, J. & Windeler, A. (1998) Organizing and evaluating interfirm networks – A structurationist
perspective on network processes and effectiveness. Organization Science 9(3): 265-284.
Uhl-Bien, M. (2006) Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and
organizing. Leadership Quarterly 17: 654-676.
Weeks, J. (2000) What do ethnographers believe? A reply to Jones. Human Relations 53: 153-171.
Yin, R.K. (1994) Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Zucchella, A. (2006) Local cluster dynamics: Trajectories of mature industrial districts between
decline and multiple embeddedness. Journal of Institutional Economics 2(1): 21-44.
16
Table 1 Interviews in the four clusters
Organization
Type of
Time frame No. of
interviews
organization
RO
Berlin2000-2006
2 Max-Born-Institute for Nonlinear Optics and
Short Pulse Spectroscopy
BrandenRO
burg
1 DLR (German Aerospace Center)
1 Optical Institute (Technical University Berlin) RO
SME
1 MergeOptics GmbH
SME
1 Clyxon Laser GmbH
CR/NAO
2 OpTecBB e.V.
RDA
Southern 2004/2005
1 University of Arizona, Economic
Development Unit
Arizona
and
RDA
2006/2007
1 Southern Arizona Technology Council
1 University of Arizona, Office of Economic and RO/RDA
Policy Analysis
RO
2 University of Arizona, College of Optical
RO
1 Sciences
SME
2 Large Binocular Telescope, Steward
LC
2 Observatory
CR/SME
2 Optical Electronics, Inc (OEI)
Raytheon Missile Systems
AOIA/Breault Research
RO
Scotland 2005/2006
2 Institute of Photonics, University of
RO
1 Strathclyde
UK Astronomy Technology Centre (Royal
RDA
2 Observatory Edinburgh)
RO/SME
1 Scottish Enterprise
SME
1 Photonix Limited
SME
1 Intense
E
2 Forth Dimension Displays Limited
LC
1 Optimat Limited
LC
1 Thales Optronics
CR/SME
2 SELEX Sensors and Airborne Systems
SOA
RO
West
2006
1 Photonics Research Group at Aston
University, Birmingham
Midlands
SME
1 Laser Optical Engineering Ltd
LC
1 Bookham Technology plc
CR/NAO
2 Photonics Cluster (UK)
RO=research organization; SME=small and medium- seized enterprises; LC=large company;
RDA=regional development agency; E=external expert; CR=cluster representative; NAO=network
administrative organization
Region
17
Table 2 Characteristics of the four clusters
Dimension
(1) Properties
Geographic scale
Economic size
(firms/employees)*
Main domain
Value chain
Level of interaction
Berlin-Brandenburg
Southern Arizona Scotland
West Midlands
concentrated
260 / 7,400
concentrated
250 / 25,000
dispersed
90 / 4,000
dispersed
60 / n.a.**
science
incomplete
high
industry
incomplete
high, but
centralized
Fuzzy
low
science
incomplete
high
industry
incomplete
low
Fuzzy
low
Fuzzy
low
present
high
present
high
not present
low
hardly any
some
significant
15
developing
15
developing
5
emerging
Cluster boundary
Rather clear
Involvement in cluster relatively high
leadership
(2) ‘Cluster Rules’
Collective identity
pronounced
Perceived legitimacy
high
(3) ‘Cluster Resources’
Financial resources
significant
(4) Phase of development
Cluster organization
age in years in 2006
5
Phase
developing
* The numbers refer to different years. ** n.a.= not available
i
´The ‘absence’ of leadership in the face of only minimalistic influencing has even been
stated for some organizations, in this case a knowledge-intensive R&D company (Alvesson &
Sveningsson, 2003).
18