Building the Resilience of Local Governance Networks: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Katarzyna Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek

Resilience has become more popular among researchers and practitioners of public governance. The variance-based structural equation modelling (SEM) based on the partial least squares path modelling method (PLS) has been used to analyze the data collected. Researchers found that social capital, primarily relational and cognitive, directly and significantly affects resilience, but transformational leadership impacts indirectly. In addition, the resilience of local governance networks is associated with bouncing back and change. 

  • public governance
  • local governance networks
  • resilience
  • social capital

1. Introduction

Governance networks are essential in creating and delivering high-quality public services [1]. These networks can respond quickly and directly to society’s needs by joining the resources of many organizations. However, they struggle with many problems resulting from jointly carrying out activities by autonomous actors, such as limited transparency, division of power, conflicts and rivalry, distrust, and opportunism [2][3][4]. Problems in governance networks may also arise from many external challenges such as environmental turbulences, financial crises, pandemics, and the complexity of social issues [5]. These conditions make resilience increasingly important in governance networks [6][7].
Resilience is an emerging research area in public governance. It indicates how to cope with turbulence and complexity for sustainable development. It also refers to using the emerging challenges to transform and implement innovative solutions [3][8][9]. Research on resilience in public governance began after the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and initially grew up in emergency management [10]. However, more and more researchers perceive this theory as an opportunity to face the complexity of different public service delivery processes [3][4][6][11]. Nowadays, resilience is an important capability in times of many different economic, social, technological, or political threats, but research in this area is still in the infancy stage [6][7][8].
Stephanie Duchek [12], Julia Hillmann [13], and Julia Hillmann and Edeltraud Guenther [8] believe that this is still an umbrella concept in its excitement phase and that in-depth study and explanation are needed to be able to assess and develop resilience. The concept of resilience in governance networks is emerging, and its exploration may bring new prospects for developing these networks [10][14].
Researchers highlight the influence of social capital and leadership on resilience [14]. The role of social capital is researched mainly in emergency management [15][16][17], tourism and hospitality [18], sociology [19], and supply chain management [20]. In turn, leadership is an essential factor that encourages creativity and improvisation [21][22][23] that can also turn crises into development opportunities [24]. In addition, it affects social capital and builds organizational resources by developing a common platform for exchanging knowledge and experience in network relations [25][26]. Transformational leadership is particularly interesting because it is the dominant leadership style [27][28], forms the basis of a relational approach to leadership [29][30], and applies to governance networks [27][29]. However, many researchers believe these relationships are insufficiently studied, and scientists have not understood them well enough to use them effectively [18][30]. There is also a research gap concerning the analysis conducted in networks. For the above reasons, this article aims to verify the relations between resilience, social capital, and transformational leadership in governance networks.
Although current research explores the relations between social capital and resilience [15] or transformational leadership and resilience [23][24], they are studied relatively rarely and not together. This article examines them both, and the impact of transformational leadership on social capital is also analyzed. Moreover, research on the relationship between social capital, transformational leadership and resilience is conducted primarily from the organization’s perspective. This article is part of the underexplored research area related to the network level.
The findings indicate that contemporary local governance networks understand their resilience as an opportunity for development, not only for maintaining stability, which is an added value to the current scientific achievements [6][7]. They confirm the last research results [12][23] that social capital significantly impacts building resilience. However, the most important are relational and cognitive capital. The findings also indicate that transformational leadership has an indirect influence on resilience. This result aligns with [29] because transformational leaders mainly shape their followers’ values, beliefs, and behaviors. In general, this article contributes to developing the theory of resilience in governance networks.

2. Resilience in Governance Networks

Governance networks consist of at least three goal-oriented and interdependent entities that engage in various relationships (e.g., collaboration, cooperation, coopetition) to develop a public value (tangible or intangible) and introduce innovations [31]. They are defined as “more or less stable patterns of social relations between mutually dependent actors, which cluster around a policy problem, a policy programme, and/or a set of resources and which emerge, are sustained, and are changed through a series of interactions” [1] (p. 11). Governance networks relate primarily to using and developing ties binding various entities to achieve common goals. Implementing activities in such networks seems beneficial, as combining the knowledge, competencies, and resources of many organizations from different sectors should achieve more than acting alone [31][32][33][34].
Public organizations play a crucial role in governance networks as they are responsible for actions undertaken in their administrative area and coordinate the functioning of other entities [32]. Although governance networks develop at all levels of the state organization, the local level contributes most to providing high-quality public services [35]. The proximity to society allows local governments to respond directly to emerging needs.
However, governance networks at all state levels struggle with many problems, such as limited transparency and autonomy or the division of power and responsibility [34]. In such circumstances, conflicts and rivalry are part of everyday life and come from distrust, opportunism, and conflict of interest [3][4][6]. Problems in governance networks may also arise from many contemporary challenges, e.g., the complexity of social problems, turbulences, joint decision-making, service integration, and resource constraints [5][36]. In addition, financial crises, disasters, climate change, political conflicts, terrorism, and pandemics such as COVID-19 cause new challenges with coordination, collaboration, and public service delivery. For this reason, resilience is becoming more and more critical in governance networks [6][7].
Resilience is an interdisciplinary concept, defined and operationalized in various ways, depending on the research area [10][13]. The first works on resilience were conducted in ecology in the 1970s [37]. In the social sciences, research on resilience began in 1988 with the work of Wildavsky, who defined resilience as the “capacity to cope with unanticipated dangers after they have become manifest, learning to bounce back” [38] (p. 85). In his view, resilience is a fundamental, dynamic and evolutionary capacity to deal with risk issues in society. Further development of research on resilience in the social sciences has been devoted to high-reliability organizations, where the ability to cope with threats is more important than operational efficiency [39][40][41].
Nowadays, resilience is understood as a multi-level dynamic capability to meet emerging challenges and implement functions and goals in turbulent conditions. This article uses the resilience definition of Williams et al. [3] (p. 742) according to which it is “the process by which an actor (i.e., individual, organization, or community) builds and uses its capability endowments to interact with the environment in a way that positively adjusts and maintains functioning prior to, during, and following adversity”. These capabilities allow actors to return to stability, adapt to new operating conditions, learn from experience, and introduce changes and innovations [8][9]. Thanks to them, actors can survive turbulence and threats, bounce off them, maintain or improve their development direction, and even improve their operations.
The contemporary approach to resilience also emphasizes its process nature. For example, Ma et al. [42] (p. 254) identified three dimensions of resilience: anticipate and plan, manage and survive, and learn and grow. Duchek et al. [14] and Duchek [12] used three dimensions of organizational resilience, which are: (1) anticipation includes observation, identification, and preparation; (2) coping which consists of accepting the situation, developing and implementing solutions; and (3) adaptation that is reflection, learning, and change. These process-based approaches to resilience enrich its understanding and emphasize the manifestations of its dynamics [3][8][12][23]. As a result, the following resilience dimensions are adapted here:
  • Coping—the capability to develop and implement solutions to a specific problem [14] to anticipate and prevent future challenges [23][38][40]. It is also the capability to deal with emerging challenges together. Coping can relate to the first stage of dealing with threats—planning and preparing activities.
  • Adaptation—the capability to function in new operating conditions that strengthen the ability to react quickly and flexibly to threats; it is based on mutual learning processes and can lead to transformation [7][38]. It is an ability that occurs during and immediately after the threat.
  • Transformation—the capability to implement changes practically, transform organizational structures, create new connections, develop and apply new operating strategies [14][39][40]. According to Folke [43], transformation is possible through interactions between different entities. It is a capability that manifests itself in the long term, resulting from the adaptation processes.
It is also noteworthy that resilience is cross-scale in nature. This nature shows that resilience is not permanent but changes over time [44]. The level of change results from adaptation cycles, the potential of actors, resilience factors, and internal and external relationships [13]. It is also crucial that the adaptation cycles “are nested within each other across space and time scales” [45] (p. 396). This cross-scale nature of resilience indicates that actors are interrelated through various relationships and interactions and emphasizes the need to build resilience at the organizational level and in inter-organizational settings. Linnenluecke has recognized this need and writes that “inter-organizational structures should be designed for resilience, recognizing that organizations are not entities operating in isolation” [10] (p. 25). This phenomenon is significant in local governance networks because changes in one actor may cascade onto other actors [45]. Resilience could help cope with such challenges, finding a new way to deliver public services. Moreover, it could affect the effectiveness and innovativeness of the everyday governance processes [6][7][11][17].

3. Social Capital in Building Resilience

Considering that in local governance networks, the development of value is based on inter-organizational relationships, social capital seems to be one of the fundamental determinants of their resilience. It allows researchers to achieve much more thanks to the combination and use of resources dispersed across many units, developing mutual relationships, fostering innovations, and building a common perception of the situation. It develops over time, builds structured relations between actors, increases the possibilities of acquiring, assimilating, and using knowledge in inter-organizational relationships [46], and intensifies learning processes [47] to foster innovation. It facilitates collaboration, joint problem-solving, and the achievement of common goals [16][48]. Straub et al. [30] compare social capital to pathways, which link individual and institutional actors and their resources, and push them into joint action. In this article, social capital is understood as “the shared knowledge, understandings, norms, rules, and expectations about patterns of interactions that groups of individuals bring to a recurrent activity” [49] (p. 176).
Research on the effects of social capital on resilience is just emerging. They are carried out in particular in the area of emergency management [16][50][51][52], community resilience [15][53], and tourism management [18]. Aldrich and Meyer [15] proved that social capital plays a more significant role in building resilience than physical infrastructure. Chan et al. [52] found that this capital is the basis for collaboration, innovation, and partnership, and it mobilizes joint action and deepens the ties connecting individual entities. On the other hand, Lee [53] pointed to the need to deepen research on the influence of social capital on resilience because the relationships between these constructs are complex.
One of the most popular classifications of social capital that could be useful in resilience research divides this capital into structural, cognitive, and relational dimensions [46][54]. Structural social capital covers the number of nodes, their arrangement in the network, and the connections between them. Cognitive social capital refers to a common language, codes, and narratives used in communication, principles of joint activities, vision, and values. Relational social capital describes the closeness of relations between nodes in networks, including the level of trust and mutual respect. Based on this classification, Johnson and Elliott [51] analyzed resilience sources within a public–private partnership and found that primarily structural linkages enhanced by relational factors allow a creative response. In turn, the analysis by Jia et al. [16] related to the functioning of private companies after an emergency indicates that structural capital is of greater proactive importance, relational capital only has a reactive effect, and cognitive capital has no significant impact on both reactive and proactive resilience. Based on the above, it is reasonable to suppose that dimensions of social capital can also stimulate resilience in local governance networks. In this regard, it was assumed that:
Hypothesis 1. 
Social capital of members in local governance networks positively and significantly influences these networks’ resilience.

4. Influence of Transformational Leadership on Resilience

After the Van Wart [55] appeal, research on public leadership is highly intense. This great interest comes from the opportunities that leadership creates in building the effectiveness and performance of public organizations. Undoubtedly, leadership in local governance networks is also essential to ensuring that actors engage in cooperative activities and help each other [56][57].
Over the years of analysis, researchers have identified many leadership styles, e.g., transactional, transformational, charismatic, shared, integrative. This article focuses on transformational leadership because it is the dominant style of leadership [27][28], constitute a basis of a relational approach to leadership [29], largely coincides with integrative and servant leadership [27][58], and applies to public organizations [27][29]. Transformational leadership is the first positive leadership style to replace the classic approach in this research field. It was introduced by Burns, who defined it as “a process where leaders and their followers raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation” [59] (p. 20). This approach was further developed by Bass (1999), proving that transformational leadership is a way to encourage employees to change attitudes and values, develop and engage in activities.
Research on leadership in the public sector considers both the perspective of general leadership theory [60] and its specificity in public governance [56]. Scholars use, among others, the scale developed by Carless et al. [61], based on Podsakoff et al. [62]. It consists of seven dimensions: vision, staff development, supportive leadership, empowerment, innovativeness, leading by example, and charisma. Similar approaches are in the studies of Mary [63], Harland et al. [24], and Ng [28]. Empirical research confirms the strong impact of transformational leadership on the attitudes and commitment of employees, their job satisfaction, and the results achieved by organizations [27][63][64]. These positive effects are since transformational leaders translate the needs of others above their own, dedicate themselves to the benefit of the organization and followers, and act as integrators connecting the actions of individuals to achieve a common goal.
By influencing social capital, transformational leadership builds organizational resources [25][26]. As role models, transformational leaders formulate a clear agenda for change, shape motivating future visions, stimulate exchange of information, and create knowledge [26]. As a result, they develop a common platform for exchanging knowledge and experiences between people from different organizations, strengthening ties between them, and encouraging them to develop skills and work together [65]. It leads to the assumption that:
Hypothesis 2. 
Transformational leadership positively and significantly influence social capital in local governance networks.
Sutcliffe and Vogus [23] emphasize that leadership is an essential factor influencing resilience. Harland et al. [24] explored the relationship between transformational leadership and subordinate resilience based on a questionnaire with 150 part-time MBA students. They stated that this type of leadership is a driving force that takes advantage of crises and can turn them into development opportunities [24]. Their results show a direct and positive impact of transformational leadership on overcoming difficulties by employees. Transformation leaders also have the opportunity to build resilience in inter-organizational relations by supporting joint activities, searching for elements that bind organizations together, improvising, and encouraging creativity [21][22][66][67]. These rationales allow researchers to assume that:
Hypothesis 3. 
Transformational leadership positively and significantly influences local governance networks’ resilience.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su14084720

References

  1. Klijn, E.-H.; Koppenjan, J. Governance Networks in the Public Sector; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2016.
  2. Klijn, E.-H.; Edelenbos, J.; Steijn, B. Trust in governance networks: Its impacts on outcomes. Adm. Soc. 2010, 42, 193–221.
  3. Williams, T.A.; Gruber, D.A.; Sutcliffe, K.M.; Shepherd, D.A.; Zhao, E.Y. Organizational response to adversity: Fusing crisis management and resilience research streams. Acad. Manag. 2017, 11, 733–769.
  4. Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, K. Interpretive structural modelling of inter-agency collaboration risk in public safety networks. Qual. Quant. 2021; in press.
  5. Ansell, C.K.; Trondal, J.; Øgård, M. Governance in Turbulent Times; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2017.
  6. Duit, A. Resilience thinking: Lessons for public administration. Public Adm. 2016, 94, 364–380.
  7. Linkov, I.; Trump, B.D. Resilience and Governance. In The Science and Practice of Resilience; Linkov, I., Trump, B.D., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 59–79.
  8. Hillmann, J.; Guenther, E. Organisational Resilience: A Valuable Construct for Management Research? Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2021, 23, 7–44.
  9. Popp, T.R.; Nowack, W. Resilience through the Financialisation of Risks? The Case of a Dairy System in Northwest Germany. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6226.
  10. Linnenluecke, M.K. Resilience in Business and Management Research: A Review of Influential Publications and a Research Agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2017, 19, 4–30.
  11. Barata-Salgueiro, T.; Guimarães, P. Public Policy for Sustainability and Retail Resilience in Lisbon City Center. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9433.
  12. Duchek, S. Organisational resilience: A capability-based conceptualization. Bus. Res. 2020, 13, 215–246.
  13. Hillmann, J. Disciplines of zorganizational resilience: Contributions, critiques, and future research avenues. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2021, 15, 879–936.
  14. Duchek, S.; Raetze, S.; Scheuch, I. The role of diversity in zorganizational resilience: A theoretical framework. Bus. Res. 2020, 13, 387–423.
  15. Aldrich, D.P.; Meyer, M.A. Social Capital and Community Resilience. Am. Behav. Sci. 2015, 59, 254–269.
  16. Jia, X.; Chowdhury, M.; Prayaga, G.; Chowdhury, M.M.H. The role of social capital on proactive and reactive resilience of zorganizations post-disaster. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 48, 101614.
  17. Zeng, X.; Yu, Y.; Yang, S.; Lv, Y.; Sarker, M.N.I. Urban Resilience for Urban Sustainability: Concepts, Dimensions, and Perspectives. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2481.
  18. Chowdhury, M.; Prayag, G.; Orchiston, C.; Spector, S. Postdisaster Social Capital, Adaptive Resilience and Business Performance of Tourism Organisations in Christchurch, New Zealand. J. Travel Res. 2019, 58, 1209–1226.
  19. Pinkerton, J.; Dolan, P. Family support, social capital, resilience and adolescent coping. Child Fam. Soc. Work 2007, 12, 219–228.
  20. Johnson, N.; Elliott, D.; Drake, P. Exploring the role of social capital in facilitating supply chain resilience. Supply Chain Manag. 2013, 18, 324–336.
  21. Valero, J.N.; Jung, K.; Andrew, S.A. Does transformational leadership build resilient public and nonprofit organizations? Disaster Prev. Manag. 2015, 24, 4–20.
  22. Waugh, W.L., Jr.; Streib, G. Collaboration and leadership for effective emergency management. Public Adm. Rev. 2006, 66, 131–140.
  23. Sutcliffe, K.M.; Vogus, T.J. Organising for resilience. In Positive Organisational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline; Cameron, K., Dutton, J., Quinn, R., Eds.; Berrett-Koehler: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2003; pp. 94–110.
  24. Harland, L.; Harrison, W.; Jones, J.R.; Reiter-Palmon, R. Leadership behaviors and subordinate resilience. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 2005, 11, 2–14.
  25. Chen, L.; Zheng, W.; Yang, B.; Bai, S. Transformational leadership, social capital and zorganizational innovation. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2016, 37, 843–859.
  26. Gupta, V.K.; Huang, R.; Yayla, A.A. Social capital, collective transformational leadership, and performance: A resource-based view of self-managed teams. J. Manag. Issues 2011, 23, 31–45. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25822536 (accessed on 20 January 2022).
  27. Sun, P.Y.T.; Anderson, M.H. Civic capacity: Building on transformational leadership to explain successful integrative public leadership. Leadersh. Q. 2012, 23, 309–323.
  28. Ng, T.W.H. Transformational leadership and performance outcomes: Analyses of multiple mediation pathways. Leadersh. Q. 2017, 28, 385–417.
  29. Ospina, S.M. Collective Leadership and Context in Public Administration: Bridging Public Leadership Research and Leadership Studies. Public Adm. Rev. 2017, 77, 275–287.
  30. Straub, A.M.; Gray, B.J.; Ritchie, L.A.; Gill, D.A. Cultivating disaster resilience in rural Oklahoma: Community disenfranchisement and relational aspects of social capital. J. Rural Stud. 2020, 73, 105–113.
  31. Isett, K.R.; Mergel, I.A.; Leroux, K.; Mischen, P.A.; Rethemeyer, R.K. Networks in public administration scholarship: Understanding where we are and where we need to go. J. Public Adm. Res. 2011, 21, i157–i173.
  32. Provan, K.G.; Lemaire, R.H. Core Concepts and Key Ideas for Understanding Public Sector Organizational Networks: Using Research to Inform Scholarship and Practice. Public Adm. Rev. 2012, 72, 638–648.
  33. Kożuch, B.; Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, K. Inter-Organisational Coordination for Sustainable Local Governance: Public Safety Management in Poland. Sustainability 2016, 8, 123.
  34. Sørensen, E.; Torfing, J. Making Governance Networks Democratic; Roskilde Universitet: Roskilde, Denmark, 2004.
  35. Coffé, H.; Geys, B. Institutional performance and social capital: An application to the local government level. J. Urban Aff. 2005, 27, 485–501.
  36. Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, K.; Owczarek, T. Complementarity of Communication and Coordination in Ensuring Effectiveness of Emergency Management Networks. Sustainability 2021, 13, 221.
  37. Holling, C.S. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1973, 4, 1–23.
  38. Wildavsky, A. Searching for Safety; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2017.
  39. Weick, K.E.; Sutcliffe, K.M. Managing the Unexpected; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2001.
  40. Weick, K.E.; Sutcliffe, K.M.; Obstfeld, D. Organising for High Reliability: Processes of Collective Mindfulness. Res. Organ. Behav. 1999, 21, 81–123.
  41. Weick, K.E. The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Adm. Sci. Q. 1993, 38, 628–652.
  42. Ma, Z.; Xiao, L.; Yin, J. Toward a dynamic model of zorganizational resilience. Nankai Bus. Rev. Int. 2018, 9, 246–263.
  43. Folke, C. Resilience (Republished). Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 44.
  44. Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N.; Bansal, P. The long-term benefits of zorganizational resilience through sustainable business practices. Strateg. Manag. J. 2016, 37, 1615–1631.
  45. Holling, C.S. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems 2001, 4, 390–405.
  46. Inkpen, A.C.; Tsang, E.W.K. Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2005, 30, 146–165.
  47. Tsai, W.; Ghoshal, S. Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Acad. Manag. J. 1998, 41, 464–476.
  48. Pawłowska, E. Social capital and the efficiency of public organizations. In Proceedings of the 5th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences and Arts: SGEM 2018, Albena, Bulgaria, 26 August–1 September 2018.
  49. Ostrom, E. Social capital: A fad or a fundamental concept? In Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective; Sarageldin, I., Dasgupta, P., Eds.; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2000; pp. 172–214.
  50. Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, K. Relational behaviours and zorganizational capabilities in public safety networks. Manag. Decis. 2020, 58, 1067–1083.
  51. Johnson, N.; Elliott, D. Using social capital to zorganize for success? A case study of public-private interface in the UK Highways Agency. Policy Soc. 2011, 30, 101–113.
  52. Chan, N.W.; Roy, R.; Lai, C.H.; Tan, M.L. Social capital as a vital resource in flood disaster recovery in Malaysia. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2019, 35, 619–637.
  53. Lee, J. Bonding and bridging social capital and their associations with self-evaluated community resilience: A comparative study of East Asia. J. Community Appl. Soc. 2020, 30, 31–44.
  54. Nahapiet, J.; Ghoshal, S. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the zorganizational advantage. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998, 23, 242–266.
  55. Van Wart, M. Administrative Leadership Theory: A Reassessment after 10 Years. Public Adm. 2013, 91, 521–543.
  56. Tummers, L.; Knies, E. Measuring public leadership: Developing scales for four key public leadership roles. Public Adm. 2016, 94, 433–451.
  57. Cepiku, D.; Mastrodascio, M. Leadership behaviours in local government networks: An empirical replication study. Public Manag. Rev. 2021, 23, 354–375.
  58. Anderson, M.H.; Sun, P.Y.T. Reviewing Leadership Styles: Overlaps and the Need for a New ‘Full-Range’ Theory. Int. J. Manag. 2017, 19, 76–96.
  59. Burns, J.M. Leadership; Harper and Row: New York, NY, USA, 1978.
  60. Vigoda-Gadot, E. Leadership Style, Organizational Politics, and Employees’ Performance: An Empirical Examination of Two Competing Models. Pers. Rev. 2007, 36, 661–683.
  61. Carless, S.A.; Wearing, A.J.; Mann, L. A short measure of transformational leadership. J. Bus. Psychol. 2000, 14, 389–405.
  62. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Moorman, R.H.; Fetter, R. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and zorganizational citizenship behaviors. Leadersh. Q. 1990, 1, 107–142.
  63. Mary, N.L. Transformational leadership in human service organizations. Adm. Soc. Work 2005, 29, 105–118.
  64. Hoch, J.E.; Bommer, W.H.; Dulebohn, J.H.; Wu, D. Do Ethical, Authentic, and Servant Leadership Explain Variance Above and Beyond Transformational Leadership? A Meta-Analysis. J. Manag. 2018, 44, 501–529.
  65. Igalla, M.; Edelenbos, J.; van Meerkerk, I. What explains the performance of community-based initiatives? Testing the impact of leadership, social capital, zorganizational capacity, and government support. Public Manag. Rev. 2020, 22, 602–632.
  66. Kwiotkowska, A.; Wolniak, R.; Gajdzik, B.; Gębczyńska, M. Configurational Paths of Leadership Competency Shortages and 4.0 Leadership Effectiveness: An fs/QCA Study. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2795.
  67. Trzeciak, M.; Kopec, T.P.; Kwilinski, A. Constructs of Project Programme Management Supporting Open Innovation at the Strategic Level of the Organisation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 58.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback