The Challenged Interplay of Integrative Aims and Shared Leadership: Experiences From Nordic Practice

References

• Ashmos, D. P., Duchon, D., & McDaniel, R. R. (2000). Organizational responses to complexity: The effect on organizational performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13(6), 577–595. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810010378597
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balducci, A., & Mäntysalo, R. (Eds.). (2013). Urban planning as a trading zone. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Batty, M. (2021). City systems and complexity. In J. Portugali (Ed.), Handbook on cities and complexity (pp. 48–63). Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Bella, D. A. (2006). Emergence and evil. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 8(2), 102–115.
   Google Scholar
• Bertolini, L. (2007). Evolutionary urban transportation planning: An exploration. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 39(8), 1998–2019. https://doi.org/10.1068/a38350
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bianchi, C., Nasi, G., & Rivenbark, W. C. (2021). Implementing collaborative governance: Models, experiences, and challenges. Public Management Review, 23(11), 1581–1589. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1878777
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradshaw, C. J. A., Ehrlich, P. R., Beattie, A., Ceballos, G., Crist, E., Diamond, J., Dirzo, R., Ehrlich, A. H., Harte, J., Harte, M. E., Pyke, G., Raven, P. H., Ripple, W. J., Saltré, F., Turnbull, C., Wackernagel, M., & Blumstein, D. T. (2021). Underestimating the challenges of avoiding a ghastly future. Frontiers in Conservation Science, 1, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419
   Google Scholar
• Bäcklander, G. (2019). To see or not to see: Importance of sensemaking in employee self-direction. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 9(2), 25–45. https://doi.org/10.18291/njwls.v9i2.114799
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bäcklund, P., & Mäntysalo, R. (2010). Agonism and institutional ambiguity: Ideas on democracy and the role of participation in the development of planning theory and practice-the case of Finland. Planning Theory, 9(4), 333–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210373684
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapman, C., Getha‐Taylor, H., Holmes, M. H., Jacobson, W. S., Morse, R. S., & Sowa, J. E. (2016). How public service leadership is studied: An examination of a quarter century of scholarship. Public Administration, 94(1), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12199
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Child, J., & Rodrigues, S. B. (2012). How organizations engage with external complexity: A political action perspective. In A. Davila, M. Elvira, J. Ramirez, & L. Zapata-Cantu (Eds.), Understanding organizations in complex, emergent and uncertain environments (pp. 13–44). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Cowell, R., & Martin, S. (2003). The joy of joining up: Modes of integrating the local government modernisation agenda. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 21(2), 159–179. https://doi.org/10.1068/c0135
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crosby, B. C., & Bryson, J. M. (2018). Why leadership of public leadership research matters: And what to do about it. Public Management Review, 20(9), 1265–1286. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1348731
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daneshpour, Z. A., Mahmoudpour, A., & Ebrahimnia, V. (2018). Knowledge-based policy-making and integration: Distinct indication to Tehran. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 10(3), 241–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2018.1531007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davy, B. (2008). Plan it without a condom! Planning Theory, 7(3), 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095208096885
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Roo, G. (2016). Spatial planning, complexity and a world ‘out of equilibrium’: Outline of a non-linear approach to planning. In J. Hillier (Ed.), Complexity and planning: Systems, assemblages and simulations (pp. 141–176). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• de Roo, G., Yamu, C., & Zuidema, C. (Eds.). (2020). Handbook on planning and complexity. Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Drescher, M. A., Korsgaard, M. A., Welpe, I. M., Picot, A., & Wigand, R. T. (2014). The dynamics of shared leadership: Building trust and enhancing performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 771–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036474
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edelenbos, J., & van Meerkerk, I. (Eds.). (2016). Critical reflections on interactive governance: Self-organization and participation in public governance. Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2015). Collaborative governance regimes. Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eppel, E. A., & Rhodes, M. L. (2018). Complexity theory and public management: A ‘becoming’ field. Public Management Review, 20(7), 949–959. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1364414
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksson, L. (2016). Policy integration for sustainable transport development: Case studies of two Swedish regions [Doctoral dissertation]. Linköping University Electronic Press. https://doi.org/10.3384/diss.diva-130781
   Google Scholar
• Gergen, K. J. (2011). The self as social construction. Psychological Studies, 56(1), 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-011-0066-1
   Google Scholar
• Hartmann, T. (2012). Wicked problems and clumsy solutions: Planning as expectation management. Planning Theory, 11(3), 242–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095212440427
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (2006). Territory, integration and spatial planning. In: M. Tewdwr-Jones & P. Allmendinger (Eds.), Territory, identity and spatial planning: Spatial governance in a fragmented nation (pp. 88–104). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Holden, M. (2012). Is integrated planning any more than the sum of its parts? Considerations for planning sustainable cities. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32(3), 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X12449483
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hrelja, R. (2015). Integrating transport and land-use planning? How steering cultures in local authorities affect implementation of integrated public transport and land-use planning. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 74, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.01.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hugonnet, R., McNabb, R., Berthier, E., Menounos, B., Nuth, C., Girod, L., Farinotti, D., Huss, M., Dussaillant, I., Brun, F., & Kääb, A. (2021). Accelerated global glacier mass loss in the early twenty-first century. Nature, 592(7856), 726–731. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03436-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2013). Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Imam, H., & Zaheer, M. K. (2021). Shared leadership and project success: The roles of knowledge sharing, cohesion and trust in the team. International Journal of Project Management, 39(5), 463–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2021.02.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jakobsen, M. L., Kjeldsen, A. M., & Pallesen, T. (2021). Distributed leadership and performance‐related employee outcomes in public sector organizations. Public Administration, 101(2), 500–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12801
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jalonen, H., Puustinen, A., & Raisio, H. (2020). The hidden side of Co-creation in a complex multi-Stakeholder environment: When self-organization fails and emergence overtakes. In: H. Lehtimäki, P. Uusikylä, & A. Smedlund (Eds.), Society as an interaction space (pp. 3–22). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kidd, S. (2007). Towards a framework of integration in spatial planning: An exploration from a health perspective. Planning Theory & Practice, 8(2), 161–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350701324367
   Google Scholar
• Koglin, T. (2015). Organisation does matter–planning for cycling in Stockholm and Copenhagen. Transport Policy, 39, 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kosunen, H., Atkova, I., & Hirvonen-Kantola, S. (2020). Co-evolutionary urban planning of a Finnish city for its low growth neighborhoods. Planning Theory & Practice, 21(4), 552–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2020.1806342
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Guin, U. (1974). The dispossessed. Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Lohmann, J., & Ditlevsen, P. D. (2021). Risk of tipping the overturning circulation due to increasing rates of ice melt. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9), e2017989118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2017989118
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lönngren, J., & Van Poeck, K. (2021). Wicked problems: A mapping review of the literature. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 28(6), 481–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2020.1859415
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magpili, N. C., & Pazos, P. (2018). Self-managing team performance: A systematic review of multilevel input factors. Small Group Research, 49(1), 3–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496417710500
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2003). Complex systems and evolutionary perspectives on organisations: The application of complexity theory to organisations. Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Molenveld, A., Voorberg, W., Van Buuren, A., & Hagen, L. (2021). A qualitative comparative analysis of collaborative governance structures as applied in urban gardens. Public Management Review, 23(11), 1683–1704. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1879912
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morçöl, G. (2012). A complexity theory for public policy. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Moroni, S., & Chiffi, D. (2021). Complexity and uncertainty: Implications for urban planning. In J. Portugali (Ed.), Handbook on cities and complexity (pp. 319–330). Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R., Jarenko, K., Nilsson, K. L., & Saglie, I. L. (2015). Legitimacy of informal strategic urban planning – Observations from Finland, Sweden and Norway. European Planning Studies, 23(2), 349–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.861808
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nadin, V., Stead, D., Dąbrowski, M., & Fernandez-Maldonado, A. M. (2021). Integrated, adaptive and participatory spatial planning: Trends across Europe. Regional Studies, 55(5), 791–803. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2020.1817363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Næss, P. (2021). Sustainable urban planning – What kinds of change do we need? Journal of Critical Realism, 20(5), 508–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767430.2021.1992737
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nederhand, J., Bekkers, V., & Voorberg, W. (2016). Self-Organization and the role of government: How and why does self-organization evolve in the shadow of hierarchy? Public Management Review, 18(7), 1063–1084. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1066417
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2002). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Pearce, C. L., Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. Jr. (2009). Where do we go from here?: Is shared leadership the key to team success? Organizational Dynamics, 38(3), 234–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2009.04.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Portugali, J. (2021). Introduction to the handbook on cities and complexity. In J. Portugali (Ed.), Handbook on cities and complexity (pp. 1–11). Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Rittel, H. (1984). Second-generation design methods. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in design methodology (pp. 317–327). John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
   Google Scholar
• Rode, P. (2019). Urban planning and transport policy integration: The role of governance hierarchies and networks in London and Berlin. Journal of Urban Affairs, 41(1), 39–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2016.1271663
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rydin, Y. (2012). Governing for sustainable urban development. Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Saunders, F., Gilek, M., Day, J., Hassler, B., McCann, J., & Smythe, T. (2019). Examining the role of integration in marine spatial planning: Towards an analytical framework to understand challenges in diverse settings. Ocean & Coastal Management, 169(1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.11.011), 1–9. 10https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.11.011
   Google Scholar
• Schulze, J. H., & Pinkow, F. (2020). Leadership for organisational adaptability: How enabling leaders create adaptive space. Administrative Sciences, 10(3), 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci10030037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sengupta, U., Rauws, W. S., & de Roo, G. (2016). Planning and complexity: Engaging with temporal dynamics, uncertainty and complex adaptive systems. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 43(6), 970–974. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813516675872
   Google Scholar
• Smith, M. (2014). Integrating policies, plans and programmes in local government: An exploration from a spatial planning perspective. Local Government Studies, 40(3), 473–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2013.823407
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spicker, P. (2012). “Leadership”: A perniciously vague concept. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 25(1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513551211200276
   Google Scholar
• Stacey, R. D. (2010). Complexity and organizational reality: Uncertainty and the need to rethink management after the collapse of investment capitalism. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Stead, D. (2008). Institutional aspects of integrating transport, environment and health policies. Transport Policy, 15(3), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stead, D., & Meijers, E. (2009). Spatial planning and policy integration: Concepts, facilitators and inhibitors. Planning Theory & Practice, 10(3), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350903229752
   Google Scholar
• Stenvall, J., & Virtanen, P. (2021). Ihmiskeskeinen hallinnon uudistaminen: hallintoreformien toteutus monimutkaisessa yhteiskunnassa. Tietosanoma.
   Google Scholar
• Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2021). Radical and disruptive answers to downstream problems in collaborative governance? Public Management Review, 23(11), 1590–1611. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1879914
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2011). Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector. Administration & Society, 43(8), 842–868. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399711418768
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tian, M., Risku, M., & Collin, K. (2016). A meta-analysis of distributed leadership from 2002 to 2013: Theory development, empirical evidence and future research focus. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(1), 146–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214558576
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torfing, J., Sørensen, E., & Røiseland, A. (2019). Transforming the public sector into an arena for co-creation: Barriers, drivers, benefits, and ways forward. Administration & Society, 51(5), 795–825. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399716680057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Triantafillou, P. (2020). Trapped in the complexity bowl? Public governance and the liberal art of governing. International Journal of Public Administration, 43(14), 1228–1236. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1668805
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuurnas, S. (2020). How does the idea of co‐production challenge public sector communication? In V. Luoma-aho & M. J. Canel (Eds.), The handbook of public sector communication (pp.139–151). John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2018). Leadership for organizational adaptability: A theoretical synthesis and integrative framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2017). Complexity leadership: Enabling people and organizations for adaptability. Organizational Dynamics, 46(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2016.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhoest, K., & Lægreid, P. (2010). Organizing public sector agencies: Challenges and reflections. In P. Lægreid & K. Verhoest (Eds.), Governance of public sector organizations: Proliferation, autonomy and performance (pp. 276–297). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Vigar, G. (2009). Towards an integrated spatial planning? European Planning Studies, 17(11), 1571–1590. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310903226499
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vogel, R., & Werkmeister, L. (2021). What is public about public leadership? Exploring implicit public leadership theories. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(1), 166–183. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, H., & Ran, B. (2023). Network governance and collaborative governance: A thematic analysis on their similarities, differences, and entanglements. Public Management Review, 25(6), 1187–1211. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.2011389
   Google Scholar
• Wiek, A., & Walter, A. I. (2009). A transdisciplinary approach for formalized integrated planning and decision-making in complex systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 197(1), 360–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2008.06.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeier, K., Plimmer, G., & Franken, E. (2021). Developing shared leadership in a public organisation: Processes, paradoxes and consequences. Journal of Management & Organization, 27(3), 564–581. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2018.78
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu, J., Liao, Z., Yam, K. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2018). Shared leadership: A state‐of‐the‐art review and future research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(7), 834–852. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2296
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar