Barbara C. Crosby
University of Minnesota
Leading in the Shared-Power World of 2020
Imagine that citizens and public officials working
together over the next decade are able to maximize the
democratic potential of today’s shared-power, “no-onein-charge” world and achieve more sustainable modes
of living together on Earth. The article focuses on the
development of shared or collaborative approaches to
leadership, ideas for developing integrative leadership
practices that harness new (and old) communications
and information technologies, and means of feeding
knowledge back and forth between academia and
practitioners in order to produce practical wisdom for
solving complex public problems.
L
et’s begin with an act of imagination, an
important part of forecasting and, indeed, of
leadership:
Imagine that in 2020, the human inhabitants of Earth
have managed to turn the tide on global warming. Over
the last 10 years, deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions
have set a trend that promises to prevent global catastrophe. Many of the people whose livelihoods and living
spaces were destroyed by climate shifts now have opportunities to restore their communities and rebuild their lives.
Scientists, elected and party officials, environmentalists, and journalists keep up a drumbeat of attention to
progress and setbacks in the fight to halt global heating,
a term that has replaced more neutral labels such as
“climate change” as more and more people have recognized the role of human activities in heating the planet’s
atmosphere.
The negotiation of international agreements and passage
of national laws have certainly been factors in these
achievements, but the most astounding occurrence has
been the increasing alignment of all sectors (business,
government, nonprofits, media, and community) around
the mission of preserving the planet. The diversity of
initiatives from the household to the multinational level
is notable.
Clearly, what Malcolm Gladwell (2000) calls a tipping
point has occurred. That does not mean that paradise
has arrived: large numbers of individuals and organizations still are consciously or unconsciously ignoring the
environmental impact of their actions, some businesses
are undermining carbon reduction schemes by cheating,
and affluent nations still consume more than a fair share
of the world’s resources. Debates continue about the best
methods of reducing greenhouse gases and production of
wastes that damage the environment. Richer nations, for
the most part, still have spotty follow-through on their
funding commitments to significantly improve the lot
of the world’s poorest people. Yet the world has changed
fundamentally for the better because a multitude of
leaders and committed followers in organizations and
networks have found sufficient ways to orient more
and more people toward a common goal of sustainable
development.
Part I: 2020:
The Good, the Bad,
and the Ugly
Barbara C. Crosby is an associate
professor in the Hubert H. Humphrey
Institute of Public Affairs at the University of
Minnesota. Her current research focuses on
collaborative and integrative leadership and
the teaching of leadership.
E-mail: [email protected]
This scenario may seem impossible today, but so did
the achievement of smoking bans a decade before
their enactment or the fall of the Soviet Union in the
late 1970s.
How does the impossible or highly unlikely become
possible? What would have to happen in order for
this opening scenario to come true? Public officials
and citizens alike would have to use the democratic
potential of today’s “shared-power, no-one-in-charge
world” (Crosby and Bryson 2005) to the fullest, while
thwarting destructive shared-power arrangements. A
global host of formal and informal leaders would have
to supply needed authority, tangible resources, hope,
persistence, and catalytic linkages. They would have to
forge formal and informal alliances crossing organizational, sectoral, regional, and cultural lines. A critical
mass of the world’s citizens would have to be engaged
for a variety of motives (mixing self-interest and
altruism) at multiple levels to make changes in their
lives and communities. They would have to create a
broadly beneficial new policy regime.
The new regime would be full of flaws, clashing
interests, and overlapping influences—just like other
successful efforts to establish broadly beneficial policy
Leading in the Shared-Power World of 2020 S69
regimes (from local to global antismoking initiatives to the global
campaign against landmines). As Hickman and Couto (2006) point
out in their study of the fight to end school segregation in the U.S.
South, such change efforts entail intended and unintended consequences and have complex causes: individual and collective actions
(for and against the change) interacting with personal networks, communal history, institutional arrangements, and environmental factors.
This article examines how people who are
committed to community or public service
over the next decade might lead their organizations (whether nonprofits, government
agencies, community groups, social ventures,
or businesses) and networks in ways that
produce more sustainable modes of living
together on Earth. In particular, the article
focuses on the following:
government agencies and beyond governments themselves (see, e.g.,
Bryson and Crosby 1992; Bryson and Einsweiler 1991; Cleveland
2002). The problem might be poverty, it might be a virulent disease
such as AIDS, or it might be the degradation of water supplies,
nuclear proliferation, or traffic congestion. A visual representation
of the problem (see figure 1) would reveal that many individuals,
groups, and organizations are affected by or contributing to the
problem, and that the resources for remedying the problem also are
distributed among many different groups.
Many of these “stakeholding” individuals,
groups, and organizations have partial responThis article examines how
sibility for doing something about the probpeople who are committed to
lem, but none has enough authority, money,
community or public service
time, or other resources to remedy it acting
over the next decade might lead alone. Some of the stakeholders in a public
their organizations (whether
problem are connected with each other in fornonprofits, government
mal or informal power-sharing arrangements,
which themselves might be exacerbating the
agencies, community groups,
problem or offer potential for remedying it.
social ventures, or businesses)
• The development of shared or collaborative approaches to leadership that match
and networks in ways that
the dynamics of a shared-power, no-one-inIn order to build power-sharing arrangements
produce more sustainable
charge world
that could be effective in tackling public
modes of living together on
• Ideas for developing integrative leaderproblems, leaders as policy entrepreneurs
Earth.
ship practices that harness new (and old)
face the challenge of bringing a critical mass
communications and information techof diverse stakeholders together to develop
nologies to link diverse groups and make
a shared understanding of the problem and
headway on the most intractable public problems
pursue promising solutions (Crosby and Bryson 2005; Roberts
• Means of feeding knowledge back and forth between academia and King 1996). Government agencies retain formal responsibiland practitioners in order to produce practical wisdom
ity for ensuring that public purposes are being pursued, and they
are expected to fund what market forces cannot provide, but in the
The article considers mainly the habits of mind and behaviors
shared-power-world view, they do not have to be the lone solvers of
of people who are in formal and informal leadership roles, when
public problems and, indeed, have limited ability to do so.
leadership is defined as “the inspiration and mobilization of others
to pursue collective action in pursuit of the common good” (Crosby
and Bryson 2005, xix). Nevertheless, followers (constituents, collaborators, citizens, etc.) are always in the picture, as leadership is a
mutual (though not necessarily egalitarian) influence relationship
between leader and follower (Rost 1991; Uhl-Bien 2006). As Warren Bennis notes, leaders and followers are part of the same dance
(Riggio, Chaleff, and Lipman-Blumen 2008, xxiii). Becoming an
engaged and effective follower is preparation for leading (Maroosis
2008). Moreover, seeing followers as “leaders in waiting” highlights
the leadership potential in everyone—a perspective that can help
expand the number of people who take on leadership challenges.
The next section will trace the growing understanding among
leadership scholars and practitioners that a multitude of far-sighted
and responsible leaders—collaborating with followers and with
each other—is needed to tackle today’s complex societal challenges
and take advantage of opportunities for organizational and societal
improvement. The concept of a shared-power, no-one-in-charge
world also will be explained, and the recent expansion of knowledge
about leading across sectoral, cultural, and national barriers will be
highlighted.
Leading in a Shared-Power World
At least since the mid-1980s, public affairs scholars who are concerned about the complex public problems besetting their societies
have recognized that these problems spill well beyond particular
S70 Public Administration Review • December 2010 • Special Issue
Source: Crosby and Bryson (2005). Reprinted by permission of John Wiley & Sons. Inc.
Figure 1 Public Problems in a No-One-in-Charge, Shared-Power
World
To maximize the likelihood that public problem-solving efforts will
produce widespread benefits at a reasonable cost (a rough indication
that the “common good” has been achieved), policy entrepreneurs
in government have reason to partner with counterparts in other
sectors—businesses, nonprofits, community groups, and media—
and in other government bodies. Two types of policy entrepreneurs—sponsors and champions—are crucial in this collaborative
work (Crosby and Bryson 2005). Sponsors are typically in formal
leadership positions and can marshal authority, staff, money, and
other resources on behalf of a policy change effort. Champions
rely mainly on informal authority and provide needed energy,
persistence, coordination, and networking skills to keep the change
process going over months and possibly years.
As policy entrepreneurs in the next decade seek to establish effective
cross-sector collaborations, they can benefit from a burgeoning body
of research on how collaborative efforts to remedy public problems
go awry and what skills of public leadership and management,
along with citizen engagement, can help those efforts succeed. For
example, Salamon (2002) and Bryson and Crosby (2008) highlight
the distinctive contributions that the different sectors can make to
public problem solving. Numerous scholars and practitioners have
identified key skills of public leadership and management, along
with citizen engagement (e.g., Bingham and O’Leary 2008; Bryson,
Crosby, and Stone 2006; Gastil and Levine 2005; Goldsmith and
Eggers 2004; Huxham and Vangen 2005; Innes and Booher 2010;
Morse and Buss 2008). Some analysts, advocates, and scholars
have focused on socially minded leadership in sectors other than
government (on business leadership, see Anderson 1998; Gerencser
et al. 2008; Maak and Pless 2006; on nonprofit and community
organizations, see Crutchfield and Grant 2008; Ospina and Foldy
2005, 2010). Other analysts have revealed the downsides of turning
over government services to businesses and nonprofits and infusing
business-style efficiency measures into public programs (Soss, Fording, and Schram, forthcoming).
structures continually interact and a new order emerges in response
to disruptions. In such complex adaptive systems, leaders can help
shape the interactions and conditions for the emergence of beneficial new orders, but they (and their collaborators) can never fully
predict outcomes (Innes and Booher 2010; Uhl-Bien, Marion, and
McKelvey 2007). Some scholars (see Redekop 2010) offer frameworks for “sustainable leadership” or “leadership for sustainability,”
as exemplified by the groups and organizations that argue that the
overarching mission for leadership in the contemporary world is to
stabilize “the currently disruptive relationship between the earth’s
two most complex systems—human culture and the living world”
(Hawken 2007, 172).
Many observers have noted the added complexity and opportunities for social learning brought by the global growth of the Internet
and other advanced communications technologies (Shirky 2008;
Weisband 2008). By 2020, these technologies will develop further,
and researchers will have published additional research on how leaders and followers might deploy them to improve societies and avoid
their destructive potential.
Whether the focus is on collaborative leadership, complex adaptive
leadership, integrative leadership, or leadership for sustainability, in
2010 leaders and leadership educators have considerable evidence
about how to lead across many types of boundaries to achieve common aims through multiple means. The next section considers how
leaders in the next decade might develop their boundary-crossing
practices as they seek to facilitate sustainable solutions to public
problems or social needs.
Developing Integrative Leadership Practices
The eight interrelated key leadership capabilities highlighted in the
Leadership for the Common Good framework will remain important in the coming decade. These capabilities are leadership in context; personal, team, organizational, visionary, political, and ethical
leadership; and policy entrepreneurship (Crosby and Bryson 2005).
Also in recent years, researchers have developed helpful evidence
In order to exercise these capabilities effectively, leaders will need
about how to lead effectively across national and cultural, as well
to move adeptly between micro and macro worlds (Mol 2002),
as sectoral boundaries, in tackling complex public problems (an
see themselves and leadership work as situated in dynamic systems
example is the extensive GLOBE studies of House et al. 2004; see
and subsystems, and be able to use old and new technologies with
also Gerencser et al. 2008; Mendenhall et al. 2008; Ospina and
consummate skill. They will need the ability to recognize, span, and
Foldy 2005). Some leadership scholars and groups (e.g., Mintzberg
and Gosling 2003; Leadership Trust 2009) are proposing a “worldly construct boundaries, and to integrate groups and organizations in
common endeavors while respecting their distinctive identities and
leadership” perspective that recognizes the value of multitudinous,
practices.
culture-based worlds that can be bridged, but deserve respect for
their rootedness in particular places and traditions. A multidisciIn 2010, life on Earth is often described as highly interconnected
plinary group of scholars at the University of Minnesota’s Center
and interdependent. Some have even talked about a boundaryless or
for Integrative Leadership has explored integrative leadership that
flat world (Friedman 2005; Waddock 2007).
bridges sectors, cultures, and regions in semiThese descriptors will retain potency over
permanent ways to achieve the common good
Leaders seeking to remedy the
the next decade, and, to a certain extent, the
(see Crosby, Bryson, and Stone 2010 and the
local manifestations of global
realization that the planet’s abundant natural
April 2010 special issue of Leadership Quarproblems will be well advised to resources are under threat by human producterly on integrative leadership).
tion and consumption only reinforces the
keep boundaries in mind and
one-world view. At the same time, boundarRecognizing the world’s diversity, more and
know which ones to protect,
ies between countries, sectors, cultures, and
more scholars are beginning to see leadership
which ones to bridge, and
communities will (and, in many cases, should)
as an enterprise that is spread throughout a
which to breach.
persist. The world’s resources, population, and
global ecosystem that includes many culcultural reserves are not distributed evenly;
tural systems. In an ecosystem, processes and
Leading in the Shared-Power World of 2020 S71
the social and economic landscape is full of wildly various spikes
and nodes (Florida 2005; Scharmer 2009). Leaders seeking to remedy the local manifestations of global problems will be well advised
to keep boundaries in mind and know which ones to protect, which
ones to bridge, and which ones to breach.
individual, group, or organizational stakeholders who are (or may
be) involved in a particular change effort.
Four types of practices seem to be particularly crucial for helping
leaders do this in the coming decade: analyzing context and stakeholders, organizing “boundary experiences,” producing “boundary
objects,” and creating and sustaining “boundary groups.” Boundary
experiences are activities that help a group of diverse stakeholders grasp each other’s perspectives, craft a shared perspective, and
develop a sense of community (Feldman et al. 2006). Boundary
objects are physical or virtual objects (such as concept maps, flip
chart diagrams, and websites) that enable people to understand
each other’s perspectives and create shared meaning (Carlile 2002,
2004; Feldman et al. 2006, 95; Star and Griesemer 1989). Boundary groups 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, 95).
Let’s consider a few of the sociological, political, economic, technological, and ecological conditions and trends that will affect the ability of nonprofit, government, business, and other leaders to make
dramatic progress in remedying global environmental degradation
(as well as responding to numerous other complex social needs or
challenges). In the next decade, the world’s economies will continue
to be highly interdependent, though the economic dominance of
the U.S., European, and Japanese economies is expected to diminish
as a result of the strong growth of China, India, and Brazil. Political
systems will continue to be a mix of stable and emerging democracies, authoritarian systems, and possibly a handful of failed states.
At the international level, the political power of the United States
increasingly will be offset by the European Union and alliances
led by China, India, Brazil, and Russia. Leaders seeking to make
progress on complex problems that spill beyond national boundaries need to be aware of these international trends, but also must
acknowledge the importance of local economies and politics.
All four types of practices are likely to be facilitated by the continued expansion of communications technology and the increased
power of computer-based data gathering and analysis tools. Yet as
modern computer and information technology increases the ability
to move across boundaries, it also creates new ones—between the
computer savvy and techno-novices, between those with Internet
access and those without. The increased ability to gather and analyze
data also increases the likelihood of breaching boundaries of personal privacy and freedom. More advanced technologies carry costs
beyond the price of equipment and software. Organizations that
wish to use new technologies effectively must invest in necessary
training and adaptation to help users develop new ways of working
(Weisband 2008). Finally, the proliferation of computers, central
servers, mobile phones, and the like has its own environmental
impacts.
Easily accessible communications technologies will provide tools
to assist citizens in demanding democratic control, but they also
will help criminals and terrorists achieve their ends. In recent years,
these technologies not only have made organizational boundaries
more permeable (Fleck 2009), but also have produced “a remarkable
increase in our ability to share, to cooperate with one another, and
to take collective action, all outside the framework of traditional
institutions and organizations” (Shirky 2008, 21). Though today’s
shared-power world is increasingly complex, “the new tools enable
alternate strategies for keeping that complexity under control”
(Shirky 2008, 21). For example, nonprofit groups seeking to maximize their impact at upcoming United Nations meetings on climate
change can easily use the Internet and Twitter to stay up to date on
scientific studies, monitor the latest controversies, and coordinate
their activities around the meetings.
Social trends that are highly important for efforts to reduce environmental degradation include population growth, often in parts of
the world that are least prepared to provide food, jobs, and health
care for additional people. At the same time, many more affluent
nations—and even China—are experiencing challenges brought on
by relatively low birth rates. Leaders of sustainability initiatives in
these countries may augment their support by taking advantage of
the wisdom, skills, and knowledge of people
over 60, while effectively channeling the enerdecade began, . . .
gies of the young.
The remainder of this section will focus first on the work of analyzing context and stakeholders in a world in which communications and information technology are proliferating and growing in
analytic, integrative, and coercive power. Second, the section will
focus on the creation of boundary experiences, objects, and groups
in such a world.
Analyzing Context and Stakeholders
Leaders who assume or are assigned responsibility for making their organizations or
communities more sustainable in today’s
world will be most effective if they understand
the constraints and opportunities inherent
in the multiple contexts (local to global) in
which they are operating. Such understanding
emerges from attention to sociological, political, economic, technological, and ecological
conditions and trends and how they can
combine to create “windows of opportunity” (Kingdon 2003) for policy innovation.
Additionally, these leaders are unlikely to
get very far without an understanding of the
As this
[n]ational governments were
still at odds with each other
over the allocation of carbon
dioxide reduction targets.
Yet national governments,
including the major carbon
emitters, China and the United
States, were making substantial
commitments to renewable
energy.
S72 Public Administration Review • December 2010 • Special Issue
Leadership in context includes an understanding of how developments in different sectors
are contributing to or beginning to alleviate
the public problem. As this decade began,
government, business, media, nonprofits, and
individual citizens were all clearly part of the
problem of global heating. National governments were still at odds with each other over
the allocation of carbon dioxide reduction
targets. Yet national governments, including
the major carbon emitters, China and the
United States, were making substantial commitments to renewable
energy. Of course, many promoters of sustainability initiatives were
dismayed by the failure of national representatives and top officials
to agree on a carbon dioxide reduction framework at the Copenhagen summit at the end of 2009. Several, however, had the ability to
see this stalemate as a continuing spur to nongovernmental action as
well as to national, regional, and local governmental programs, thus
keeping the “window of opportunity” for diverse initiatives open
(Katz 2010). A scan of the world in 2010 offers numerous examples
of such initiatives, from the cultivation of community gardens,
to the marketing of hybrid and electric cars (plus construction of
supportive infrastructure), to media stories on the scientific climate
reports and disputes about the methods used to compile them.
On the business side, groups such as the Globally Responsible
Leadership Initiative, the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development, and green building councils are promoting sustainable business training and practices. Firms such as the carpet
company Interface and Marks & Spencer are providing examples
of what could be achieved by corporate commitment to help repair
the earth. The behemoth discounter Walmart has committed to zero
waste and is an early customer for “green” mini-power stations. Consumers and business investors are increasingly making clear that they
will reward firms that show progress in protecting the environment.
Finally, the context includes a complicated array of organizations
and networks with varying degrees of hierarchy. The advantages of
hierarchical institutions will not disappear in the next decade; as in
the past, they will efficiently and reliably produce certain kinds of
products and services, and they will provide a readymade authority
and accountability structure. They also have a social control function that appeals to those with privileged positions in the hierarchy.
Today, though, many critics point to the rigidities and dangers of
relying on multilayered hierarchies (Light 2009); moreover, the
direct power of the people they serve has increased exponentially,
thanks to their ability to spread information and coordinate their
actions through virtual forums such as blogs, chat rooms, and Twitter. Organizational leaders are likely to need skills in promoting
collaboration within hierarchy and in networks that include a mix
of decentralized and hierarchical organizations.
Leading Locally in Personal to Global Contexts
The foregoing is a macro-level sketch, but how might this play out
or affect initiatives at a local level in the United States right now?
Take the example of a manager in a city agency who has just been
given responsibility for a new weatherization program. Unfortunately, the responsibility does not come with much of a budget, and
she has other work on her plate. Now she must figure out, in concert
with many other people, how to marshal the resources she controls
and the authority she has, along with their resources and authority,
to accomplish the overarching goal of decreasing the cost and environmental impact of heating and cooling buildings. Taking a look at
the broader context, she keeps in mind that this initiative fits within
the political and economic conditions of recession aftermath and
reduced government budgets. As she looks around her city, she sees
pockets of wealth and poverty, and more in-between neighborhoods.
A starting place for finding collaborative partners for the weatherization effort is a consideration of the individuals, groups,
organizations, and networks that have a stake in this effort.
To begin, she may invite a handful of potential partners to help her
with more careful stakeholder analysis that will be a part of organizing
boundary experiences that can create helpful boundary objects
and establish ongoing boundary groups. A crucial question is who
among the stakeholders can be effective champions and sponsors
of a citywide campaign to weatherize buildings (and achieve the
overarching goal). Perhaps a city council member strongly advocated
the inclusion of the program in the city’s budget and work plan and
could be counted on to be a sponsor of carrying it out. Meanwhile,
either the agency manager or someone on her staff may need to
champion the process of building a collaborative interorganizational
network that can bring needed resources to bear on the problem of
energy-gobbling buildings. The manager might begin by turning
the analytic lens on herself: what expertise, commitments, formal
and informal authority, and connections does she have that could
contribute to (or undermine) this initiative?
Many leadership development experts emphasize the importance
of being aware of one’s strengths, including core values (Avolio and
Luthans 2006; Kouzes and Posner 2007; Sosik 2002), as a means of
developing the requisite sense of self-efficacy and solid foundation
for leadership. Yet attention to limitations can provide inoculation
against the hubris that can overtake successful leaders. Strengths
are shadowed by one’s weaknesses; identifying those weaknesses can
illuminate the need to cultivate the strengths of others and provide
alerts about potential pitfalls of overconfidence. Additionally, awareness of weaknesses also can increase a leader’s comfort with moving
into follower roles as merited. Also important for understanding
one’s strengths and limitations is developing an awareness of one’s
rootedness in particular places, families, and cultures. Ultimately,
these types of exercises promote a strong, integrated sense of self,
which becomes even more vital in a world in which leaders increasingly need to cross sectoral, cultural, and national boundaries and
find ways to be authentic in diverse settings (Mendenhall et al.
2008).
Self-understanding prepares leaders to appreciate and build on commonalities with the people they seek to engage in a change effort.
These might be commonalities based on the essentials of humanness, or a shared profession, religion, gender, ethnicity, or age group.
Self-understanding also prepares leaders to recognize interpersonal
differences that will need to be respected and understood. Thus, an
elected official who is also a parent may be able to connect easily
with other parents around a common concern for the harm that
environmental degradation does to children. The same official may
be a vegetarian, partly based on concern about the massive amounts
of methane, a greenhouse gas, produced by livestock. He will have
to work hard to appreciate fully the person who is a proud livestock
farmer.
The complexity of the world points to the need for leaders to be
continual learners, about themselves, about new information and
communications technologies, about the systems in which particular public problems are embedded, and about sectors, cultures,
and parts of the world with which they are unfamiliar. Formal
courses are useful, as well as undertaking study tours or accepting
assignments (as an employee or volunteer) in unfamiliar territories.
Brown and Adler (2008) suggest that Web 2.0 technology can help
Leading in the Shared-Power World of 2020 S73
considerably because of its ability to support learning communities
across generational, disciplinary, and geographic borders.
Organizing Boundary Experiences, Producing Boundary
Objects, and Creating and Sustaining Boundary Groups
Leaders can help participants in multistakeholder forums develop
shared understanding and commitment to new directions by
using stories and language that convey urgency and resonate across
boundaries (Innes and Booher 2010). An example would be the
shift to “global heating” (from the more neutral “climate change,”
or less alarming “global warming”) and the description of Earth as
everyone’s home and a legacy for future generations. Stories and
language can activate individuals’ identities as stewards of the planet
and protectors of their families (Lord 2008). Leaders also can organize more specialized forums in which these stories and language can
be supplemented by terms that are likely to fit with the experience
of the group—for example, an emphasis on “eco-efficiency” or “zero
waste” in a group of business people. Sometimes visionary leaders
prompt support for new directions by offering credible predictions
about the even more harmful effects that a problem is likely to have
in the future if unchecked. A general vision of the world’s citizens
working to achieve a sustainable future for the planet, complemented by a multitude of more specialized visions, can constitute an
“invisible leader” (Follett 2003) that facilitates alignment of groups
and networks that are not directly connected to each other. Further
stakeholder analysis (Bryson 2004) can help with the crafting of
these visions.
These days, groups can take advantage of new computer-based
technologies for gathering and winnowing ideas for remedying
a public problem. Tools such as IdeaScale allow participants to
discuss and refine their own and others’ ideas and vote for the best
ones (see http://www.ideascale.com). A “wiki debate visualization
tool” called DebateGraph “enables local and global communities
of people to think together by collaboratively building and editing comprehensive and succinct maps of complex debates” (Fleck
2009). New web-based tools help amateur and expert researchers
alike tap into databases and archive materials. Brown and Adler
note the web environment’s ability to promote a “humanistic spirit
of communal and collaboratively ‘playful’ learning” (2008, 26).
Online forums function best, however, when they establish some
governance mechanisms. Shirky (2008) notes the importance of
establishing ground rules that promote self- and other-minded
behavior—that is, the rules invite or facilitate diverse contributions
while ensuring that the community and its members are protected
from attack.
Leading Locally
Let’s return to the example of the agency manager in charge of the
weatherization program as she begins a dialogue with an initial small
group of people in nonprofit groups, businesses, schools, academia,
the arts, and other government agencies that have an interest and
ideally experience in cutting energy consumption and cost in homes
and other buildings. Many of them she has encountered before,
possibly outside of work responsibilities, and one or two are close
colleagues, possibly friends. Several are among recent graduates of
public management master’s degree programs and undergraduate
leadership programs that have prepared them to be leaders and followers within and across organizational and cultural boundaries.
S74 Public Administration Review • December 2010 • Special Issue
Together, they begin planning a meeting, seminar, or workshop.
They want to create boundary experiences, a series of forums in
which representatives of diverse stakeholder groups can freely share
their knowledge about the state of the city’s structures, their sense of
priorities and best modes of operating, and promising technologies
for social networking and learning from demonstration projects.
The forums also should lay the groundwork for a consortium of
individuals and groups that will support an array of energy-saving
approaches and identify needed additional policy decisions by legislators, boards of directors, and executives. The consortium would
be a new boundary group that would extend well beyond the initial
impetus of expanding the reach of the city’s weatherization program.
As the manager and her colleagues begin planning the cross-boundary forums, they draw up an invitation list of people with rich social
ties that span several boundaries. They make sure that people from
business, nonprofit, community, media, and government sectors
are represented. Aware of the boundaries that often prevent different ethnic groups from benefiting from each other’s traditions and
experiences, the organizers want to make sure that different cultural
groups are included. For example, because the city has a substantial
number of Native American residents, the organizers invite representatives from a nearby reservation that has successfully experimented with new low-cost, energy-efficient housing in cooperation
with tribal colleges. Another local Native American tribe has used
profits from its successful casino to build tribal offices that have the
latest in passive heating and cooling technology. They are invited,
too. Perhaps the involvement of the Native Americans increases
attention to another stakeholder group—future generations and
Earth itself.
If a series of initial meetings produces an agreement to form a new
consortium, its champions can expect to encounter all of the issues
of collaboration that scholars have highlighted in the last decade.
Struggles over purpose, power, membership, trust, and leadership
are likely to abound (Huxham and Vangen 2005; Innes and Booher
2010). In order to manage or resolve these struggles, policy entrepreneurs can engage consortium members in periodic boundary
experiences that help them establish and refine guiding principles
for working together, outline and endorse a shared mission and
vision, agree on action steps, and identify open questions. These
forums are also appropriate occasions for setting general criteria—
such as technical and administrative feasibility, political viability,
and legal and moral acceptability—for evaluating proposed projects,
programs, and policies (Crosby and Bryson 2005). Guiding principles, provisional and final mission statements, and action plans
can all be captured as (or within) boundary objects constructed
during and after the meetings. Another important outcome of the
boundary-crossing forums is the formation of additional boundary
groups—such as an executive or policy board (to help govern the
consortium) and task forces and working groups (to help it evaluate
alternative courses of action and implement specific projects).
As they construct boundary experiences, planners will find important advantages in old, low-tech technologies—face-to-face meetings
and structured talk—but also more “advanced” communications
and decision support technology—such as webinars, virtual meeting
rooms, online dialogue, and polling (see Gastil and Levine 2005;
Hall 2007; Weisband 2008). The task forces and working groups
can search for information on the Internet, employ various survey
techniques, and use GIS (geographic information system) databases
and applications to try out multiple scenarios. They may even start
a two-way information exchange about successful practices with
some communities outside the United States. Of course, one of
the leadership challenges that will only become more pressing in
the coming decade is how to avoid unnecessary meetings, virtual
communication, and information overload (see Hall 2007 for some
helpful suggestions).
tive leaders and engaged followers, starting even in elementary
school (a model is offered by the Public Achievement program
developed by Harry Boyte 2004 and the Center for Democracy and
Citizenship). Heartening developments are evident at U.S. universities, where leadership and civic engagement have increasingly been
incorporated into the undergraduate and graduate curriculum. For
the last three years, Minnesota’s Center for Integrative Leadership
has offered a case-based leadership course that brings together business, law, and public affairs students. Community leadership courses
that enroll participants from different sectors are widespread in the
country, though most do not focus on tackling public problems
together.
As boundary groups develop shared understandings and action
plans, wise policy entrepreneurs will ensure that the plans include
sound political strategies—that is, plans for building the necessary
Morse (2008) draws on several collaborative leadership frameworks
coalition for obtaining approvals from appropriate decision-making
to detail a comprehensive set of leader attributes, skills, and behavbodies. Such strategies can take advantage of various electronic
iors that programs focusing on public problem-solving should strive
communication technologies: websites, e-mail, and tweets can keep
to inculcate. The growing need to lead across
coalition members continually informed
sectors, cultures, and regions should prompt
about what is happening as proposals are conThe growing need to lead across program organizers to offer opportunities
sidered. YouTube can be used to promote the
sectors, cultures, and regions
for participants to develop intersectoral and
cause to a larger audience. Of course, these
tools are equally available to opposing groups,
should prompt. . . opportunities intercultural competencies—for example, an
understanding of the characteristic strengths
and effective political leaders are continually
. . . to develop intersectoral and
helping their coalitions counter opponents’
intercultural competencies—for and failures of the different sectors and their
connection to the common good. More
moves and messages and convincing decision
example, an understanding of
than ever, program participants will need the
makers that their own proposals are in the
the characteristic strengths and
cognitive, emotional, and behavioral comdecision makers’ best interests as well as good
failures of the different sectors
plexity that enables them to bridge multiple
for the organization or community for which
boundaries (Hooijberg, Hunt, and Dodge
the decision makers are responsible. In addiand their connection to the
1997; Mumford et al. 2006). Clearly, protion to helping their groups develop sound
common good.
gram organizers should also help participants
political strategies, wise policy entrepreneurs
develop competency in using communicaalso ensure that they build in enforcement
tions and social networking technologies in public problem solving
strategies for ensuring those mechanisms work. For example, the
and organizational learning. For master’s programs, a practice-based
growing availability of networked communications tools gives citicurriculum makes sense (Raelin 2007).
zens, journalists, and regulators much greater ability to monitor the
authenticity of a weatherization business’s claim that it is recycling
The good news is that the generations succeeding the baby boomers
all the leftover materials from its projects. Government regulators,
in effect, can be assisted by a horde of volunteers providing informa- in the U.S. workforce are expressing more desire for and comfort
with collaborative methods of working (Green 2008; Maccoby
tion that can activate formal and informal sanctions.
2008). An important challenge for leadership development is how
to help them operate effectively in a world that will always include a
Finally, the need for team leadership skills—respectful commumix of hierarchy and collaboration.
nication processes, participatory planning and decision making,
and mutual appreciation and support—is ongoing in these groups
Conclusion
(Crosby and Bryson 2005). Studies of virtual and face-to-face netThanks to the financial and environmental crises that are at the
works indicate that in order to promote learning among the various
forefront of world consciousness now, the importance and impact of
teams and foster a resilient overall change network, at least one or
shared-power arrangements and widespread leadership are more evitwo members of every team should be connected to other teams
dent than ever. How likely is it that by 2020, leaders and committed
(Shirky 2008, 215). The people who engage in this cross-boundary
followers at many different levels, in different sectors, and in many
work can expect to experience conflicting group loyalties at times;
in order to maintain legitimacy with more than one group, they can different parts of the world will have done their part to produce
the scenario outlined at the outset of this paper? No one can say,
make clear their commitment to the success of each group while
but many readers will easily be able to recall a time when nuclear
highlighting the worth of bridging the two. If team leaders have
helped their teams develop an identity as “learning teams,” members weapons proliferation, smoking, or AIDS seemed like intractable
public problems. Today, nuclear weapons treaties, resulting from a
with connections to multiple groups are likely to be valued rather
combination of national government negotiations and pressure from
than suspect.
citizen groups, are in force and generally effective. Smoking rates
have been drastically reduced, and associated health indicators draDeveloping Leaders for a Shared-Power World
matically improved in many countries. Effective AIDS prevention
The increased complexity of public problems, global interdependand treatment regimes have been established in many developing as
ence, and speed of information technology development in the
well as wealthier nations. In all of these cases, the determined work
coming decade all argue for intentional development of collaboraLeading in the Shared-Power World of 2020 S75
of cross-boundary leaders and committed citizens has resulted in
new arrays of policies, laws, rules, programs, projects, and expected
behaviors that have advanced the common good. Researchers in the
last two decades have accumulated substantial knowledge about how
such efforts succeed. Those of us engaged in preparing leaders and
citizens to tackle complex public challenges in the decades to come
have a rich array of resources to inform our own practice.
References
Anderson, Ray C. 1998. Mid-Course Correction: Toward a Sustainable Enterprise: The
Interface Model. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.
Avolio, Bruce J., and Fred Luthans. 2006. The High Impact Leader: Moments Matter
in Accelerating Authentic Leadership Development. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bingham, Lisa Blomgren, and Rosemary O’Leary, eds. 2008. Big Ideas in Collaborative Public Management. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Boyte, Harry C. 2004. Everyday Politics: Reconnecting Citizens and Public Life. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Brown, John Seely, and Richard P. Adler. 2008. Minds on Fire: Open Education, the
Long Tail, and Learning 2.0. EDUCAUSE Review 43(1): 17–32.
Bryson, John M. 2004. What to Do When Stakeholders Matter: Stakeholder Identification and Analysis Techniques. Public Management Review 6(1): 21–53.
Bryson, John M., and Barbara C. Crosby. 1992. Leadership for the Common Good:
Tackling Public Problems in a Shared-Power World. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
———. 2008. Failing into Cross-Sector Collaboration Successfully. In Big Ideas in
Collaborative Public Management, edited by Lisa Blomgren Bingham and Rosemary O’Leary, 55–75. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Bryson, John M., Barbara C. Crosby, and Melissa Middleton Stone. 2006. The Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector Collaborations: Propositions from the
Literature. Special issue, Public Administration Review 66: 44–55.
Bryson, John M., and Robert C. Einsweiler, eds. 1991. Shared Power: What Is It? How
Does It Work? How Can We Make It Work Better? Lanham, MD: University Press
of America.
Carlile, Paul R. 2002. A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary
Objects in New Product Development. Organization Science 13(4): 442–55.
———. 2004. Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge across Boundaries. Organization Science 15(5):
555–68.
Cleveland, Harlan. 2002. Nobody in Charge: Essays on the Future of Leadership. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Crosby, Barbara C., and John M. Bryson. 2005. Leadership for the Common Good: Tackling Public Problems in a Shared-Power World. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Crosby, Barbara C., John M. Bryson, and Melissa Middleton Stone. 2010. Leading
across Frontiers: How Visionary Leaders Integrate People, Processes, Structures
and Resources. In The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance, edited by Stephen P. Osborne, 200–221.
New York: Routledge.
Crutchfield, Leslie R., and Heather McLeod Grant. 2008. Forces for Good: The Six
Practices of High-Impact Nonprofits. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Feldman, Martha S., Anne M. Khademian, Helen Ingram, and Anne S. Schneider.
2006. Ways of Knowing and Inclusive Management Practices. Special issue,
Public Administration Review 66: 89–99.
Fleck, P. 2009. Using the Web in Strategic Planning Processes. Unpublished manuscript.
Florida, Richard. 2005. The World Is Spiky. Atlantic Monthly, October, 48–51.
Follett, Mary Parker. 2003. Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary
Parker Follett. New York: Routledge.
Friedman, Thomas L. 2005. The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First
Century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
S76 Public Administration Review • December 2010 • Special Issue
Gastil, John, and Peter Levine, eds. 2005. The Deliberative Democracy Handbook:
Strategies for Effective Citizen Engagement in the Twenty-First Century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gerencser, Mark, Reginald Van Lee, Fernando Napolitano, and Christopher Kelly.
2008. Megacommunities: How Leaders of Government, Business and Non-Profits
Can Tackle Today’s Global Challenges Together. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gladwell, Malcolm. 2000. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Boston: Little, Brown.
Goldsmith, Stephen, and William D. Eggers. 2004. Governing by Network: The New
Shape of the Public Sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Green, Daryl. 2008. Knowledge Management for a Postmodern Workforce: Rethinking
Leadership Styles in the Public Sector. Journal of Strategic Leadership 1(1): 16–24.
Hall, Kevan. 2007. Speed Lead: Faster, Simpler Ways to Manage People, Projects and
Teams in Complex Companies. London: Nicholas Brealey.
Hawken, Paul. 2007. Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came
into Being, and Why No One Saw It Coming. New York: Penguin.
Hickman, Gill Robinson, and Richard A. Couto. 2006. Causality, Change
and Leadership. In The Quest for a General Theory of Leadership, edited by
George R. Goethals and Georgia L. J. Sorenson, 152–87. Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar.
Hooijberg, Robert, James G. Hunt, and George E. Dodge. 1997. Leadership
Complexity and Development of the Leaderplex Model. Journal of Management
23(3): 375–408.
House, Robert J., Paul J. Hanges, Mansour Javidan, Peter W. Dorfman, and Vipin
Gupta. 2004. Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62
Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Huxham, Chris, and Siv Vangen. 2005. Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and
Practice of Collaborative Advantage. New York: Routledge.
Innes, Judith E., and David E. Booher. 2010. Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy. New York: Routledge.
Katz, Ian. 2010. The Time for Action. The Guardian (London), January 1, 2–4.
Kingdon, John W. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 2nd ed. New York:
HarperCollins.
Kouzes, James M., and Barry Z. Posner. 2007. The Leadership Challenge. 4th ed. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Leadership Trust. 2009. The Worldly Leadership Initiative: Of the World, for the
World. http://www.worldlyleadership.org.uk/ [accessed August 26, 2010].
Light, Paul C. 2009. A Government Ill Executed: The Decline of the Federal Service and
How to Reverse It. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lord, Robert. 2008. Followers’ Cognitive and Affective Structures and Leadership
Processes. In The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders
and Organizations, edited by Ronald E. Riggio, Ira Chaleff, and Jean LipmanBlumen, 255–66. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Maak, Thomas, and Nicola M. Pless. 2006. Responsible Leadership in a Stakeholder
Society—A Relational Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 66(1): 99–115.
Maccoby, Michael. 2008. What Kind of Leader Do Followers Want to Follow?
In The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations, edited by Ronald E. Riggio, Ira Chaleff, and Jean Lipman-Blumen,
209–17. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Maroosis, James. 2008. Leadership: A Partnership in Reciprocal Following.
In The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations, edited by Ronald E. Riggio, Ira Chaleff, and Jean Lipman-Blumen,
17–24. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mendenhall, Mark E., Joyce S. Osland, Allan Bird, Gary R. Oddou, and Martha L.
Maznevski, eds. 2008. Global Leadership: Research, Practice and Development.
New York: Routledge.
Mintzberg, Henry, and Jonathan Gosling. 2003. Five Minds of a Manager. Harvard
Business Review 81(11): 54–63.
Mol, Annemarie. 2002. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Morse, Ricardo S. 2008. Developing Public Leaders in an Age of Collaborative Governance. In Innovations in Public Leadership Development, edited by Ricardo S. Morse and
Terry F. Buss, 79–100. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Morse, Ricardo S., and Terry F. Buss, eds. 2008. Innovation in Public Leadership Development. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Mumford, Michael D., Stephen J. Zaccaro, Francis D. Harding, T. Owen Jacobs, and Edwin A. Fleishman. 2000. Leadership Skills for a Changing World: Solving Complex
Social Problems. Leadership Quarterly 11(1): 11–35.
Ospina, Sonia, and Erica Foldy. 2005. Toward a Framework of Social Change Leadership. Paper presented at the 8th Public Management Research Conference, March 10–13,
University of Southern California.
———. 2010. Building Bridges from the Margins: The Work of Leadership in Social Change Organizations. Leadership Quarterly 21(2): 292–307.
Raelin, Joseph A. 2007. Toward an Epistemology of Practice. Academy of Management Learning and Education 6(4): 495–519.
Redekop, Benjamin W., ed. 2010. Leadership for Environmental Sustainability. New York: Routledge.
Riggio, Ronald E., Ira Chaleff, and Jean Lipman-Blumen, eds. 2008. The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Roberts, Nancy C., and Paula J. King. 1996. Transforming Public Policy: Dynamics of Policy Entrepreneurship and Innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rost, James C. 1991. Leadership for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Praeger.
Salamon, Lester M., ed. 2002. The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance. New York: Oxford University Press.
Scharmer, C. Otto. 2009. Theory U: Leading from the Future as It Emerges. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Shirky, Clay. 2008. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations. New York: Penguin.
Sosik, John J. 2006. Leading with Character: Stories of Valor and Virtue and the Principles They Teach. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Soss, Joe, Richard C. Fording, and Sanford F. Schram. Forthcoming. The Organization of Discipline: From Performance Management to Perversity and Punishment. Journal of
Public Administration and Theory.
Star, Susan Leigh, and James R. Griesemer. 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.
Uhl-Bien, Mary. 2006. Relational Leadership Theory: Exploring the Social Processes of Leadership and Organizing. Leadership Quarterly 17(6): 654–76.
Uhl-Bien, Mary, Russ Marion, and Bill McKelvey. 2007. Complexity Leadership Theory: Shifting Leadership from the Industrial Age to the Knowledge Era. Leadership Quarterly 18(4): 298–318.
Waddock, Sandra A. 2007. Leadership Integrity in a Fractured Knowledge World. Academy of Management Learning and Education 6(4): 543–57.
Weisband, Susanne P., ed. 2008. Leadership at a Distance: Research in Technologically Supported Work. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
ASPA Announces its
2011 – 2012
National Council Slate of Candidates
Details for online voting can be found at:
Sign up at http://www.aspanet.org
Leading in the Shared-Power World of 2020 S77