Integrative public leadership: a systematic review

Abstract

Purpose

Public leadership literature has recognised the need for specific integrative leadership style in boundary-crossing collaborations, and it has been proposed as a new umbrella term for describing such leadership in boundary-crossing settings. The article reviews the research literature on integrative leadership and describes and analyses its contents by answering the following question: What are the characteristics of integrative public leadership?

Design/methodology/approach

To review the integrative leadership literature, a systematic literature review was conducted. The databases and search services included Web of Science, Andor provided by Tampere University, Scopus, Emerald, Business Source Ultimate (Ebsco) and ScienceDirect (Elsevier). The search terms were accordingly chosen as integrative leadership, integrative public leadership and public integrative leadership. From the hundreds of search hits 25 research articles were selected in the reviewing process to be further analysed through qualitative content analysis. Crosby and Bryson’s (2010) framework for understanding leadership and the creation and maintenance of cross-sector collaborations was used as a starting point for the categorisation.

Findings

The article presents an improved integrative leadership framework that helps to identify the factors shaping integrative leadership and visualises better the interconnection of structures, processes and participants, through which leadership is enacted in the collaborative network.

Originality/value

The article extends the knowledge on integrative public leadership and helps to direct future research.

Citation

Parkkinen, J. (2024), "Integrative public leadership: a systematic review", International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-03-2024-0093

Introduction

The challenges that public sector organisations are facing are increasingly complex, unpredictable, open-ended, and intractable in nature (Head and Alford, 2015, p. 712). Moreover, these challenges seem to pile on top of each other, cross organisational and jurisdictional boundaries, and there are no simple solutions to tackle them (Bryson and Crosby, 1992, p. 4; Luke, 1998, p. 1). These challenges are often referred to as “wicked problems” (Head and Alford, 2015). Consequently, no single actor, organisation, or sector possesses the capacity or necessary resources to address these problems alone (Bryson and Crosby, 1992, p. 4; Luke, 1998, p. 1; Huxham and Vangen, 2005, p. 7; Klijn and Koppenjan, 2016, p. 4).

To tackle these problems, there’s a need for intensified interaction and collaboration between actors (Williams, 2013, p. 17; Klijn and Koppenjan 2016, p. 4). Collaboration requires the participation of multiple leaders from collaborating organisations who lack formal authority over each other (Pedersen and Hartley, 2008, p. 336; Crosby and Bryson, 2010, p. 211; Sun and Anderson, 2012, p. 309), and guiding such collaboration to gain collaborative advantage demands collaborative governance and new forms of leadership (Silvia and McGuire, 2010, pp. 264–265; Costumato, 2021, p. 262; see also Huxham and Vangen, 2005; Ansell and Gash, 2008). However, the discussion around leadership has been divided into different competing concepts, such as catalytic leadership (Luke, 1998), collaborative leadership (e.g. Chrislip and Larson, 1994), collective leadership (e.g. Contractor et al., 2012; Quick, 2017), facilitative leadership (e.g. Svara, 2003; Ansell and Gash, 2008; Greasley and Stoker, 2008), network leadership (e.g. McGuire and Silvia, 2009; Silvia, 2011), integrative public leadership (e.g. Crosby and Bryson, 2010; Morse, 2010), and shared leadership (Bryson and Crosby, 1992). The difference between the various concepts is blurred, and it may be stated that the concepts have more conjunctive than disjunctive features. These features include the interpretation of the operational environment as a network-based structure, the importance of trust and shared goals among the collaborators, collaborations and partnerships across organisational boundaries to organise action, and the increased need for interpersonal interaction.

From the above concepts, integrative public leadership (integrative leadership) has been hypothesised to become a new umbrella term for describing boundary-crossing leadership (Morse, 2010, p. 231). In addition, it has been hypothesised to serve as a unifying, interdisciplinary framework to promote and help reflect future leadership research (Morse, 2010, p. 231). After more than a decade of integrative leadership research, it is reasonable to examine how it has been researched and whether it has established a position as such an umbrella term.

Crosby and Bryson’s (2010) conceptual framework for understanding leadership and the creation and maintenance of cross-sector collaborations has played a crucial role in defining leadership in cross-sector collaborative settings, as well as what integrative leadership is as a concept (e.g. Bryson et al., 2006; Crosby and Bryson, 2010). Some researchers have defined integrative leadership further by connecting it to transformational leadership, one of the most dominant leadership styles in recent years (e.g. Sun and Anderson, 2012). Others have widened the framework by including theories and other concepts in the analysis, like what Morse (2010) does with Huxham and Vangen’s (2005) theory of collaborative advantage and Silvia and McGuire (2010) with Van Wart's (2005, 2017) leadership behaviours. Integrative leadership and the Crosby and Bryson’s (2010) framework have also been used in some empirical studies where the framework has served as a basis of analysis (Ospina and Foldy, 2010; Silvia and McGuire, 2010; Soria et al., 2015; Malin and Hackmann, 2019). Most integrative leadership research has focused on leadership in the public sector, but some studies have set their focus on private sector organisations (see Wilson-Prangley and Olivier, 2016; Zhang et al., 2021; Keränen et al., 2023).

This study aims to review the research literature on integrative leadership and describe and analyse its contents by answering the following question: What are the characteristics of integrative public leadership? While doing so, the article refines further the concept of integrative leadership. The article uses the Crosby and Bryson’s (2010) framework as a starting point for the analysis. The framework acknowledges that leaders and leadership are crucial players in the integration process of collaborative networks; however, the framework does not concentrate solely on leaders and leadership (Crosby and Bryson, 2010, p. 212). To strengthen the leadership aspect in the framework, the article follows the footsteps of Morse (2010) and uses Huxham and Vangen’s (2005) theory of collaborative advantage, especially the concept of leadership media, which resonates through actors, processes, and structures as an aid to interpret the results. Leaders are considered in this article not only as media-transmitting leaders but also as agents that affect the surrounding interorganisational collaborative networks with their actions (see Crosby and Bryson, 2010, p. 212).

After the introduction, the article builds up the conceptual framework of the paper. It evolves from the concept of integrative leadership and underlines the three important components of leadership – structures, processes, and participants. The empirical section starts with a description of the materials, methods, and steps of the review process. The article then describes the results using the integrative leadership framework to construct the analysis. In the last section, the article discusses the findings of the review process and concludes with some key points about integrative leadership research.

Integrative public leadership

After the turn of the millennium, the interest in interorganisational collaboration and integrative leadership has increased significantly in academic studies (Van Wart, 2013, p. 531). Integrative leadership may be defined as bringing diverse groups and organisations together in semi-permanent ways and typically across sector boundaries to remedy complex public problems and achieve the common good (Crosby and Bryson, 2010, p. 211). The common good refers to the public value that integrative leadership seeks to create by attempting to solve complex public problems (Morse, 2010, p. 234).

At least two features have been proposed to separate integrative leadership from other concepts used to describe boundary-crossing leadership. The first is the idea of integration itself (Morse, 2010, p. 232). As Morse describes the characteristics of integration, he refers to the groundwork of Follett (1918, 1924), who examines integration mainly as a social process. Integration is something that is developed because of successful integrative leadership, and it is more profound in its nature than normal collaboration would be. Successful integration tightens the relations between the collaborators, makes the operation of the collaborative network smoother, and helps the participants achieve something that would not otherwise be achievable (Morse, 2010; accord Follett, 1918, 1924).

According to Sun and Anderson (2012, p. 317), the other feature of integrative leadership is civic capacity. It consists of an altruistic will and motivation to participate in community service, collaborative skills, and a pragmatic style of organising structures and processes to advance collaboration. Integrative leaders skilled in civic capacity can facilitate the formation of common understanding and help the participants work together and pursue the common good (Page, 2010, pp. 250, 262; Sun and Anderson, 2012, p. 321).

As initiators, champions, sponsors, and facilitators (Crosby and Bryson, 2010, p. 219; Torfing and Díaz-Gibson, 2016, pp. 107–108; Crosby et al., 2017, pp. 660–661), integrative leaders create prerequisites for the working of the collaborative network and help the network create something new that would not otherwise be achievable. In their various roles, integrative leaders build a shared understanding of the problems to be solved and objectives to be achieved, empower the participants to continue pursuing the collaboration, build interpersonal trust and legitimacy, facilitate the working of participants and their mutual interactions, reconcile differing views, and solve rising conflicts (Huxham and Vangen, 2005, p. 214; Crosby and Bryson, 2010, p. 219; Page, 2010, pp. 249–250). The actions of integrative leaders resemble the effects of catalysts in chemical reactions—they cause things to happen and accelerate long-term development processes (Luke, 1998, p. 33; Morse, 2010, pp. 232–233).

The empirical section of the article is guided by the Crosby and Bryson’s (2010) framework presented in Figure 2. Crosby and Bryson’s (2010) framework has had significant impact within integrative leadership research which argues for the choice of the framework as a starting point for the analysis. The framework consists of five interactive elements, namely, initial conditions, processes and practices, structure and governance, contingencies and constraints, and outcomes and accountabilities.

The initial conditions describe the key contextual forces that affect the change effort (Crosby and Bryson, 2010, p. 217). Certain favourable conditions resulting from turbulence, existing institutional arrangements, and possible failure of the sector contribute to the establishment of the collaborative network. The role of integrative leaders and their existing relationships and partnerships are also crucial while establishing the collaborative network. Initiators, champions, and sponsors are needed, and in the framework their role is best visible in the initial conditions.

Different practices and processes are performed to advance the working of the collaborative network. For example, bringing individual collaborators or institutions together and encouraging the actors to collaborate requires reframing issues and integrating perspectives in ways that can appeal to the different actors (Morse, 2010, p. 241; Redekop, 2010, p. 289). This requires suitable arenas for participation and engagement in collaboration, initial agreement on organising the collaborative effort, the establishment of working planning processes, and the effort of integrative leaders to build leadership, trust, and legitimacy among the collaborators. Managing power differences and conflicts is also one of the important processes that integrative leaders are responsible for.

Appropriate structural arrangements and governing mechanisms are important elements to ensure the flowing operations of the collaborative network. The structures and governance mechanisms should be considered at both formal and informal levels and planned to be adaptive enough to deal with various unexpected situations and changes at the systemic level (Crosby and Bryson, 2010, p. 224). The contingencies and constraints summarise some key factors, such as the construction mechanism and the type and level of the collaboration that may affect the working of the collaborative network (Crosby and Bryson, 2010, p. 225).

Finally, the outcomes and accountabilities emphasise the importance of reassessment to comprehend the results of the action. As Crosby and Bryson (2010, p. 226) suggest, public value is most likely created by producing different first-, second-, and third-order effects. The establishment of an accountability system may help the collaboration system achieve its goals.

The framework could be challenged further for the position and importance of individual actors—the participants of the collaborative network. In the framework, the contribution of the participants or integrative leaders is emphasised in the context of initial conditions, and they are considered to play an important role as initiators, sponsors, and champions in the initial formation of collaborative networks. However, this positioning in the framework may lead to the thought that integrative leaders contribute only to the initiation phase of the collaborative network and that processes and structures play more important roles in the later phases of the operation of the collaborative network. It can be argued that the role of integrative leaders could be visualised better in the framework because structures, processes, and participants are all considered important while making things happen in collaborative settings (Huxham and Vangen, 2005, p. 203, 211). This is also in line with the Crosby and Bryson’s (2010) framework as they argue that leadership work plays a key role in creating and maintaining cross-sector collaborations and connecting the various elements of the framework (2010, p. 212).

Huxham and Vangen (2005; see also Huxham and Vangen, 2000, pp. 1166–1168) emphasise the importance of structures, processes, and participants in their theory of collaborative advantage. Morse (2010) uses Huxham and Vangen’s (2005) theory alongside the Crosby and Bryson’s (2010) framework. Although Huxham and Vangen do not clearly define the concept of leadership as media, they describe leadership in collaborative settings as something that is enacted through the structures, processes, and participants (Huxham and Vangen, 2005, pp. 203). Structures lay the foundations for collaboration and play an important leadership role as they determine who may take part in the collaboration and have an influence on the operation, what kind of power they wield, and what resources may be utilised. Formal and informal processes and practices may take many shapes and forms, but in general, they affect the ways the participants communicate with one another. At best, processes and practices promote the collaboration of the participants, help build a shared understanding of the collaboration’s agenda, and empower the participants to work for the common good. In addition, the participants–collaborators–play a powerful leadership role in the collaborative settings, as any participant with sufficient power and know-how to lead may take the leadership role in the different phases of the collaboration (Huxham and Vangen, 2005, pp. 204–206).

However, it should be noted that Huxham and Vangen (2005, p. 80) emphasise collaboration as highly resource-consuming and often painful. Therefore, one should engage in collaboration only in matters where the advantage of collaboration is clearly visible beforehand. As integrative leadership, already by definition, is connected to collaboration and working collaboratively, the application of different leadership styles is likewise needed.

Materials and methods

To review the integrative leadership literature, a systematic literature review was chosen as the main method for this study. As a method, a systematic literature review provides systematic, exact, and reproducible means to assess, evaluate, and compress the material of former research articles (Fink, 2005, p. 17). A systematically conducted literature review can be a powerful tool for building new knowledge when applied correctly. The key is to analyse and synthesise the existing research literature using a replicable, scientific, and transparent procedure (Tranfield et al., 2003, p. 209). This also helps separate systematic reviews from more loosely done narrative reviews.

The systematic literature review was conducted following an adapted version of the procedure described by Fink (2005, p. 54) and summarised in Figure 1. The data searches were conducted in February 2020 and complemented in May 2024. After the definition of the research question, the online databases and search services for the keyword search were selected. The databases and search services included Web of Science, Andor provided by Tampere University, Scopus, Emerald, Business Source Ultimate (Ebsco), and ScienceDirect (Elsevier). The searches were restricted to literature in the English language. As the aim of the literature review was to concentrate specifically on characteristics of integrative leadership, the search terms were accordingly chosen as integrative leadership, integrative public leadership, and public integrative leadership. To ensure research quality and validity, the decision was made to concentrate data searches primarily on peer-reviewed research literature. The data searches resulted a total of 1089 hits.

The search hits were narrowed down in four phases. In the first round, the obvious duplicates were excluded, and 643 articles were chosen to be analysed further after the first round. In the second round, all abstracts were carefully read through, and the articles that did not clearly address integrative leadership, were excluded. A total of 154 articles remained after the second round. In the third and fourth rounds, the articles were analysed further by reading the articles carefully several times, and the articles were eliminated if they did not match the predefined criteria. For example, articles related to interorganisational networks that only shallowly referred to integrative leadership research without contribution to integrative leadership research were left out of the final analysis. However, due to the lack of empirical research, the methodological screen was forced to stay wide, and purely conceptual theoretical articles were included in the synthesis. Three articles were excluded from the review due the concerns about the reliability of one of the journals. After the third and fourth rounds, 25 articles were identified to be relevant for the actual synthesis of integrative leadership literature. The articles are presented in Appendix.

In the data, an average of one to two articles have been published each year. Year 2010 stands out because of the special issue on integrative leadership published in the journal of Leadership Quarterly. Eighteen of the articles in the dataset focus on North America (US and Canada) and most of the authors have affiliations with US universities. In addition to these, there are four European, two Asian and one African research article in the data. There are eleven conceptual or theoretical articles, three surveys, and ten case or qualitative studies. One of the articles may be called a mixed-method study as it combines quantitative and qualitative methods for data collection. Of the empirical studies, six studies concentrate on public sector organisations, three target the private sector, and five examine non-governmental or non-profit entities.

As Fink (2005, p. 198) describes, the quality of the available literature may set certain demands or restrictions for the synthesis. For example, the lack of controlled trials or rigorous observational studies may lead to performing qualitative synthesis instead of statistical meta-analysis. This was the case with the literature on integrative leadership. To increase the validity of descriptive synthesis, the articles were analysed using qualitative content analysis (see Elo and Kyngäs, 2008). While doing so, the review process adopted features from qualitative meta-synthesis, where content analysis is used as a tool to support synthesis making (cf. Evans, 2008, pp. 144–145). In the first stage, the articles were read through carefully and reduced to key phrases. The key phrases were then reduced and clustered. The formation of the clusters occurred so that the clusters were reduced in number and combined to form so-called meta-clusters. The clusters and formed meta-clusters were labelled so that it was possible to handle the clusters as codes. Finally, a framework was adopted to help determine the basis for the interpretation of findings, and the clusters and codes were fitted and integrated into the Crosby and Bryson’s (2010) framework. Given that the clusters and codes did not fit perfectly into the framework, they expanded the original framework, resulting the framework presented in Figure 2. This application of the categorisation frame resembles the unconstrained categorisation matrix mentioned by Elo and Kyngäs (2008, pp. 111–112). Next, the results of the review process are reported.

Initial conditions for a boundary-crossing collaboration

The environment affects the formation of a boundary-crossing collaboration. The turbulence in a specific sector or the power imbalances among various institutions and organisations are specifically mentioned in the Crosby and Bryson’s (2010, p. 217) framework, as they may either ease or complicate the formation of the collaborative network. In addition, the impact of shared history may affect efforts to initiate the working of the collaborative network (Wilson-Prangley and Olivier, 2016, p. 267), which has also been acknowledged as an important factor in collaborative governance research (Ansell and Gash, 2008, pp. 553–554).

If a separate sector fails systematically to solve social issues on its own, the crossing of sectoral boundaries may be perceived as a more likeable solution (Crosby and Bryson, 2010, p. 218). McDermott et al. (2019, p. 248) support this proposition and suggest that systematic failure may even provide leaders with some leverage to better justify the value of boundary-crossing initiatives. However, none of the articles in the data focuses directly on systematic failure.

To start operating, a boundary-crossing collaboration needs some direct antecedents. As Crosby and Bryson (2010, p. 219) suggest, boundary-crossing collaborations are more likely to succeed when one or more linking mechanisms, such as powerful initiators, sponsors, and champions, general agreement on the problem, or existing networks are in place at the time of their initial formation. Of these, the meaning of an individual leader as a sponsor or champion has been the subject of multiple studies. The various roles, leadership tasks and behaviours, and competencies of an integrative leader have been widely studied and will be further discussed in the section on participants due to the decisions made with the framework of this article (see earlier). The initiation of boundary-crossing collaboration also raises the question of sufficient resources. Crosby and Bryson (2010, p. 218) start with the assumption that none of the individual actors can solve the problems at hand on their own and that the lack of resources works as a driving force to intensify the collaboration. However, efforts of leadership and the help of certain grant-making organisations may be needed securing resources, paying the costs to initiate the action, reducing overlaps and deciding on issues under the ownership of potential resources, and incentivising collaboration (Morse, 2010, p. 244; Bussu and Galanti, 2018, pp. 356–357; Sumiyana et al., 2022, p. 1040).

Structure and governance (formal and informal)

For the effectiveness of boundary-crossing collaboration, it is important that all necessary stakeholders are represented in the collaboration at the right moment of the process. The so-called boundary organisations promote the construction of collaboration by providing an arena for bringing the actors together and facilitating integration across boundaries (Morse, 2010, pp. 239–240; see also Cash et al., 2006; Feldman et al., 2006). Furthermore, after the operation of the collaborative network has been initiated, it is important to develop means to deal with membership turnover situations (Crosby and Bryson, 2010, p. 224).

As the Crosby and Bryson’s (2010) framework indicates, structural arrangements play an important role in supporting the operation of boundary-crossing collaboration. Moreover, the structure of the collaborative network should be flexible enough to adapt and respond to the challenges posed by the changing environment (Crosby and Bryson, 2010, p. 224). Morse (2010, p. 233) agrees with this and adds that while designing the structures, it should be noted that along with the social structures, one should also pay attention to the structural arrangements that enable collaborative action in the first place (Morse, 2010, p. 233). The role of the boundary organisations may be crucial in facilitating communication across boundaries and ensuring the equal participation of the collaborators. They also provide expertise in terms of content and process (Morse, 2010, pp. 233–234). Ospina and Foldy (2010, p. 300) note that the formal structure may not be enough to ensure effective collaboration and that open and inclusive informal structures may also be needed to ensure the participation of the sought-after actors. Sun and Anderson (2012, pp. 317–318) refer to this ability to construct collaborative structures as civic pragmatism and elaborate that integrative leaders skilled in civic pragmatism can translate social opportunities into practical reality and pragmatically build structures and mechanisms for collaboration.

Equally important is to establish certain governance mechanisms that help the collaborative network to survive and accomplish its goals (Crosby and Bryson, 2010, pp. 224). In addition, the governance mechanisms enhance the unity of the collaborative network and ensure the consideration of different perspectives in decision-making (Ospina and Foldy, 2010, pp. 299–300). The network may be totally self-governed, or a separate boundary organisation may be needed to serve as an institutional catalyst (see Crosby and Bryson, 2010, p. 224; Morse, 2010, p. 244). The governance mechanisms should include at least the means of setting policies, coordinating activities, and monitoring outcomes (Crosby and Bryson, 2010, p. 224).

As Crosby and Bryson (2010, p. 223) state, structure has not been the focus of research on collaboration. The data confirm this, as there are only a handful of articles that contribute to this topic. Thus, the structural arrangements and governing methods should be the subject of more detailed research, as integrative leadership is not only restricted to collaborative forms of governance (Candel, 2021, p. 353).

Processes and practices (formal and informal)

Crosby and Bryson’s (2010) framework describes various processes and practices that are essential while establishing the collaborative network and proceeding with the collaboration. Notably, integrative leadership is needed to stabilise the genuine integrative processes (Candel, 2021, p. 356). The effective design and use of different kinds of forums, arenas, and courts may be considered one of the key processes in the collaborative network. The forums and arenas serve as shared spaces for participation, help the integrative leader bring together participants from different organisations and sectors, and promote the equal participation of the participants (Crosby and Bryson, 2010, pp. 219–220). Page (2010, p. 249) and Crosby et al. (2017, pp. 662–663) highlight the meaning of convening and inclusion as the exclusivity of the collaborative venue affects the willingness to participate and helps ensure the participation of people who understand the different aspects of the problem and can contribute to the problem-solving. The boundary experiences (joint activities to create a sense of community, see Feldman et al., 2006, p. 94) and the boundary objects (objects that enable people to understand other perspectives, see Feldman et al., 2006, p. 95) may be used to promote the collaboration in different forums and arenas. Together, they play a crucial role in the development of a common purpose and pave the way for achieving something close to true integration (Crosby and Bryson, 2010, p. 220; Morse, 2010, p. 242).

Forging the initial (and subsequent) agreements lay the foundation for the operation of the collaborative network and will later affect the outcomes of the collaboration. The formal agreements may include, for example, a broad purpose, mandates, commitment of resources, and designation of a decision-making structure. The agreements may also specify how the planning processes should work during the collaboration. As Crosby and Bryson (2010, p. 221) state, two contrasting approaches of planning have been associated with successful collaboration: one emphasising deliberate, formal planning that takes place usually when the collaboration is mandated and the other emphasising an emergent approach that is likely to be assumed when collaboration is not mandated. Apart from the Crosby and Bryson’s (2010) work, little is said about forging agreements or planning the operation of a collaborative network in the data on integrative leadership research. The importance of a shared vision, a carefully designed and effective planning process, and mutually agreed objectives for the collaboration could be associated with the strategic planning process. However, in the data, they are tightly connected to the behaviours and competencies of the integrative leader (see later), which implies that the role of an individual leader is essential for the forging of agreements and setting the planning processes.

As differing perspectives are debated to integrate the various goals of different participants into mutually agreed objectives, conflicts are likely to occur (Crosby and Bryson, 2010, p. 222). Given that different conflicts are common in collaborative networks, the integrative leader will need practical tactics to manage and solve conflicts effectively. Usually, personal relationships and the communication skills of the integrative leader help mediate and solve conflicts (Ospina and Foldy, 2010, p. 301). However, as Crosby et al. (2017, pp. 664–665) describe, extremely skilful integrative leaders can turn transgressive conflicts into constructive ones that help creativity and innovation to thrive, among others.

Boundary-crossing collaborations are more likely to succeed if they manage to build leadership (Crosby and Bryson, 2010, p. 222). As Bryson et al. (2015, p. 658) elaborate, the function of leadership in cross-sector collaboration may be seen as aligning the different parts of the framework in such a way that public value can be created. Indeed, the role of an integrative leader in a collaborative network is challenging. The leader needs to approach the other participants as equals, and leadership roles need to be shared among the participants (Silvia and McGuire, 2010, p. 275). The recruitment of competent and committed leaders for formal and informal leadership positions on different levels of the collaborative network and the establishment of a healthy leadership culture are of utmost importance (see later section on participants).

Building trust between the participants of the collaborative network and legitimacy with a wide spectrum of stakeholders are important tasks to promote the success of a collaborative network (Crosby and Bryson, 2010, p. 223). It is worth noting that trust-building is an ongoing requirement for successful collaborative networks (Huxham and Vangen, 2005, p. 160). The means for trust building are many, but it is apparent that trust builds in a mutual process among the participants, and interaction and communication skills are pivotal for success. Mutual trust helps the participants to fully engage in the operation of the collaborative network (Silvia, 2011, p. 70) and may be seen to promote the integration of the network. Legitimacy building is vital, particularly for newly formed collaborative networks (Crosby and Bryson, 2010, p. 223), because they need the support of the stakeholders to gain access to resources the stakeholders’ control (Silvia, 2011, p. 69). The trust building is an ongoing process which requires communication and personal commitment of integrative leader (see Bryson et al., 2015, p. 653).

Notably, there is a process that is not clearly acknowledged in the Crosby and Bryson’s (2010) framework: the importance of communication. Integrative leaders must set up effective and transparent processes that enable communication to take place (Sun and Anderson, 2012, p. 316). While building communication, some points should be noted. Communication should be enabled to take place through both formal and informal processes (McDermott et al., 2019, p. 246). Communication should be frequent and bidirectional (Cooper, 2016, p. 101), and it should be bold enough not to cause friction or slowness in collaboration (Keränen et al., 2023, p. 199). Finally, the facilitation of communication and information flows among different participants should aim to produce a common language between the different participants (Bussu and Galanti, 2018, p. 357).

Participants as integrative leaders

Crosby and Bryson’s (2010) framework does not focus on leaders and leadership, and the role of leaders and leadership may be interpreted as those of sponsors and champions. Considering that the integrative leadership literature in the data describes the role of an integrative leader with more variety and that majority of the literature also specify directly or indirectly the roles, behaviours, competencies, and practices of leaders and what kind of leadership is required in boundary-crossing collaborations, it is reasonable to suggest that leaders and leadership deserve more visible positions in the Crosby and Bryson’s (2010) framework.

As already noted above, Crosby and Bryson (2010, p. 219) suggest that boundary-crossing collaborations need powerful initiators, sponsors, and champions to advance the initiation of the collaboration. After the establishment of the collaborative network, the initiators, sponsors, and champions are still needed to sustain the operation of the collaboration, but other leadership roles are needed as well. Boundary spanners are needed for crossing the organisational boundaries and building integrative partnerships (Morse, 2010, p. 244; see also Williams, 2013, p. 25). Facilitators are needed to get the actors to collaborate effectively across organisational boundaries and to get the collaborators to engage in processes of mutual learning (Torfing and Díaz-Gibson, 2016, pp. 107–108). Catalysts are needed to create appropriate disturbances and stimulate the actors to think out of the box and develop and implement new and bold solutions (Morse, 2010, p. 234; Torfing and Díaz-Gibson, 2016, p. 108; see also Luke, 1998). Meta-governors are needed to monitor and manage the collaboration (Torfing and Díaz-Gibson, 2016, p. 106). Implementers are needed so that things can get done, and their role is particularly important in uncertain processes of networked innovations (Crosby et al., 2017, p. 661).

The integrative leadership literature identifies several behaviours that are relevant to boundary-crossing collaborations. Integrative leaders should, for example, help the collaborators formulate a collaborative vision and shared goals (Morse, 2010, p. 241; see also Redekop, 2010, pp. 281–282). They should also be competent at monitoring, managing, and coordinating the ongoing work of the boundary-crossing collaboration (Torfing and Díaz-Gibson, 2016, p. 106). They should empower, inspire, and motivate the participants (Redekop, 2010, p. 286). They should contact people and create and sustain collaborative networks. As Morse (2010, p. 243) puts it, integrative leaders should develop and use “relationship capital.” Furthermore, integrative leaders should understand the different perspectives of the participants and work as mediators and interpreters between the participants (Ospina and Foldy, 2010, p. 297; Sun and Anderson, 2012, p. 314). They should manage and resolve conflicts (Crosby and Bryson, 2010, p. 222; Silvia and McGuire, 2010, p. 267; accord Williams, 2002, pp. 115–116; Keränen et al., 2023, p. 199). They should be experts on trust building (Silvia and McGuire, 2010, p. 275) and facilitating participants and citizen involvement (see Bussu and Galanti, 2018, pp. 356–357). They should read the audience, adjust their performance for the audience, and communicate and interact proficiently with different groups of people (Redekop, 2010, p. 286). Finally, they should promote organisational learning (see Alban-Metcalfe and Alimo-Metcalfe, 2010, p. 4).

As we look at the behaviours and tasks of integrative leaders, we can confirm Morse’s (2008, pp. 96–97) observation: a lot is known about what collaborative leaders should do, but much less is known about who collaborative leaders truly are, which is something that can be observed by focussing on the competencies of integrative leaders. Although research focussing directly on the competence requirements of integrative leaders is scarce, some notions can be made based on the integrative leadership literature. First, the influence of the person and the reputation of the integrative leader may play a crucial role in catalysing collaboration, as Sun and Anderson (2012, p. 313) suggest. Therefore, values like equality, justice, and honesty (Sun and Anderson, 2012, p. 320) and the charisma (Redekop, 2010, p. 285) of the integrative leader may affect how the different stakeholders react to and accept the collaborative message.

As a second notion, integrative leaders need a certain moral desire and motivation to be involved with social issues and serve the community, which Sun and Anderson (2012) call civic capacity (see also for altruistic motives Bono et al., 2010). Overall, integrative leaders must be committed to the cause and be passionate enough to work for the integration of boundary-crossing collaboration.

The third notion is that the leadership roles may change from one person to another if they are more competent to lead and facilitate the needed action (see Huxham and Vangen, 2005, p. 206), which is also related to the shared leadership (see Anderson and Sun, 2017, pp. 85–86; Bryson and Crosby, 1992, p. 32). In this perspective, it is not a surprise that communication- and interaction-related competencies (see Redekop, 2010) are crucial. Integrative leaders should also be highly skilled in collaborative and facilitative competencies like understanding interpersonal connections and the characteristics and strengths of different actors (see Alban-Metcalfe and Alimo-Metcalfe, 2010, pp. 10–11), seeing the opportunity for integration, getting the key actors around the round table and facilitating integration (Morse, 2010, p. 243), and being able to cooperate and work as a team member with different stakeholder groups (Soria et al., 2015, p. 65). Finally, even though the so-called interpersonal skills are highlighted, strategic skills, governance and management skills, and skills, knowledge, and experiences in the leaders’ own sector are required. However, integrative leaders seem to be less apt to act as administrative “task masters” (Silvia and McGuire, 2010, p. 275); thus, the usage of these skills depends on the position and role of the integrative leaders.

Based on their framework, Crosby and Bryson (2014) define specific practices that integrative leaders should follow. These practices include shaping and taking advantage of windows of opportunities, building strategic cross-boundary relationships, deploying personal and organisational assets on behalf of policy change, designing and using forums, designing and using governance structures and decision-making processes, influencing and authorising decision-makers, enforcing and reinforcing formal and informal rules and norms in courts, maintaining structural flexibility, and assessing outcomes and managing results. These practices consider the leadership aspect better and, as Crosby and Bryson (2014, p. 69) state, help direct attention to what leaders do in particular settings. In addition, Keränen et al. (2023) emphasise the need for acknowledging vision and values as guiding principles, relying on inclusive leadership and knowledge sharing between different participants, interacting with stakeholders, and lastly, building balanced and inclusive decision-making. Together, the roles, behaviours, competencies, and practices help to form a picture of what kinds of leaders and leadership are required in boundary-crossing collaborations.

Contingencies and constraints

There are multiple factors that may affect the formation and active operational period of collaborative networks. Whether the collaboration is formed in a top–down or bottom–up way (Crosby and Bryson, 2010, p. 225) affects the time taken to negotiate the initial agreements, as well as how the collaborative network is accepted by the participants and who participates or contributes to the collaboration. In particular, citizen participation and coproduction should be organised in such a way that minimises the frustration of citizens and the resistance of public managers (see Bussu and Gallanti, 2018, p. 356). Understanding how the structures and mechanisms have been formed may help the integrative leader leverage them to foster collaboration (Sun and Anderson, 2012, p. 313).

In addition, the type or level of collaboration sets certain demands for the integration process (Crosby and Bryson, 2010, p. 225). As Sun and Anderson (2012, p. 309) note, leaders in boundary-crossing collaborations typically face unique challenges. The way to overcome these challenges is to engage in dialogue with different participants, not only about subjects that are mutually agreed upon but also about conflicting needs, interests, goals, and activities. The amount of dialogue depends on the level of the collaborative organisation. As Crosby and Bryson (2010, p. 225) elaborate, collaborations involving system-level planning activities are likely to involve the most negotiation, while administrative-level partnerships and service delivery partnerships need less negotiation.

Collaborative networks are likely to experience shocks that affect relationships among participants, resources, and even the very purpose of the collaboration (Crosby and Bryson, 2010, p. 225). For example, power imbalances (Ospina and Foldy, 2010, p. 301) can be speculated as a fundamental barrier to the integration of collaborative networks. Therefore, it is crucial to determine how the power imbalances and shocks are handled, and the competing institutional logics are fitted together. The responsibility for settling these conflicts falls to the integrative leader, thereby demanding a certain competence (Morse, 2010, p. 244; Silvia and McGuire, 2010, pp. 266–267; accord Williams, 2002, pp. 115–116). Without the few exceptions above, little is written about power imbalance and competing institutional logics.

The outcomes and accountabilities of boundary-crossing collaborations

In the end, every boundary-crossing collaboration is assessed by its outcomes and ability to create public value. The outcomes of boundary-crossing collaborations and the creation of public value are challenging to assess (see Page et al., 2015). Moreover, success is difficult to achieve in boundary-crossing collaborations, and it usually depends on the leadership (Crosby and Bryson, 2010, p. 227). Therefore, the fact that there are hardly any notions about the outcomes and effects of leadership on them in integrative leadership literature needs to be addressed.

Crosby and Bryson (2010, p. 217) divide the outcomes into public value creation, first-, second-, and third-order effects, and resilience and reassessment. The accountabilities consist of systems to track inputs, processes, outputs, outcomes, result management systems, and relationships with political and professional constituencies. According to Crosby and Bryson (2010, p. 226), it is important to design collaborations so that the collaborators’ self-interests are acknowledged, strengths are utilised, and weaknesses are overcome or compensated. To create public value, the joint effort of different stakeholders (including citizens) may be something to reach for as it usually develops a common understanding and ability to work together, and while doing so, builds civic capacity (Page, 2010, p. 250). The outcomes may vary from tangible to intangible, and successful collaboration around one issue can spill over to other issues and build capacity to enable future collaborations (Crosby and Bryson, 2010, p. 226).

Boundary-crossing collaborations may result in effects on three levels (see Crosby and Bryson, 2010, p. 226). First-level effects are immediate, such as the creation of new social capital. Second-level effects are medium-term effects that take place after the collaborations are well underway. Such effects may include, for example, emergent partnerships. Third-level effects are long-term effects, such as new institutions or new norms. Integrative leaders should pursue results on all levels. Multilevel results have been observed, for example, in cross-sector collaborative partnerships that support high school career academy reforms (Malin and Hackmann, 2019, pp. 212–213). Attention should also be given to the resilience and reassessment of the collaboration. By assessing the current state of the action, integrative leaders can create the needed modifications to the structures, processes, and participants in the leadership roles (Malin and Hackmann, 2019, p. 213) and increase the resilience of the boundary-crossing collaboration. Even in the moment of failure, integrative leaders should highlight the possibility of learning from the failures and strive to rally partners for future endeavours (Crosby and Bryson, 2010, p. 227).

Crosby and Bryson (2010, p. 226) state that “cross-sector collaborations are more likely to succeed when they have an accountability system that tracks inputs, processes, and outcomes; use a variety of methods for gathering, interpreting, and using data; and use a results management system that is built on strong relationships with key political and professional constituencies.” However, in the end, the success of a boundary-crossing collaboration is determined by the interpretations of the different stakeholders. As Page (2010, p. 250) summarises, it is crucial that the benefits and costs that stem from implementing their joint decisions match the stakeholders’ sense of equity. The last point in the Crosby and Bryson’s (2010) framework is only slightly described and stands for the success of the boundary-crossing collaboration, and as a result, from the success and promotion of reciprocal relations and commitments with the political and professional constituencies involved. This may be comparable to increasing the social or relationship capital of the integrative leader (Morse, 2010, p. 243), which helps foster collaborations and achieve collective goals in the future.

Discussion and concluding remarks

The objective of this article was to review the research literature on integrative leadership and answer the following question: What are the characteristics of integrative public leadership? In the systematic literature review, 25 research articles were selected to be analysed further through qualitative content analysis. Crosby and Bryson’s (2010) framework and Huxham and Vangen’s (2005) theory of collaborative advantage, especially the concept of leadership media, were used as tools to interpret the results. The results illuminate some interesting findings, which are next discussed further.

The results of this study indicate that the interaction of participants, processes and practices, and structures are relevant determining the success of leadership in the collaborative network. The interaction of these three factors may be considered as one of the key characteristics of leadership in collaborative settings and according to the results of this article, also in integrative leadership. This interpretation is strongly affected by Huxham and Vangen’s (2005) theory of collaborative advantage. Integrative leaders are responsible for the integration of the above mentioned three factors.

Conceptually, this serves as a guide for improving the Crosby and Bryson’s (2010) framework. The article follows the footsteps of Morse (2010) by using the Huxham and Vangen’s (2005) theory and concept of leadership media along with the framework of Crosby and Bryson (2010) and takes a step further by integrating these models together more closely. Figure 2 presents a proposition for an improvement to the original framework based on the results of this article. The improved framework helps to identify the factors shaping integrative leadership and better visualises the three interconnected media, participants, processes and structures, through which leadership is enacted in the collaborative network. Indeed, it can be argued that by integrating the participants more clearly into the original framework of Crosby and Bryson (2010), the improved framework now recognises leaders and leadership better as a crucial part of the collaborative network.

As stated at the introduction, integrative leadership has been proposed as a tool to understand leadership in cross-sector collaborative settings where the government is typically an important actor (Morse, 2010, p. 231). However, given the small number of articles (25) and the rather moderate annual article production on integrative leadership, one can suggest that integrative leadership has not established such a position as a widely acknowledged umbrella term that Morse (2010, p. 231) speculated over a decade ago. Also, this raises a need to consider whether any of the other leadership concepts have established their position as a such umbrella term. This may be the case with collaborative public leadership, as it has turned out to be popular in the academic community (Van Wart, 2013, p. 531; see also Vogel and Masal, 2015, pp. 1176–1178).

While the primary contribution of this article is mainly conceptual in nature, there are several implications for practitioners. The improved framework may help the managers and leaders working in the public sector and in boundary-crossing collaborations, among others, to better comprehend the crucial factors of integrative leadership and how the different factors are related.

In practice, after ensuring sufficient resources, connecting the plausible collaborators (usually by appealing to the shared history of collaborators), and gathering them together to form an agreement on the problem and the objectives for the collaboration, the integrative leaders sustain the action of the collaboration, for example, by facilitating the action of the collaborative network (Luke, 1998, p. 143) and building good communication between the participants.

The creation of appropriate structural arrangements and governance mechanisms (Crosby and Bryson, 2010, pp. 223–224), as well as the promotion of functional processes and practices (Crosby and Bryson (2010, p. 219), are both important tasks. The key is to ensure that the most functional solutions that fits with the needs of the collaborative network are adopted. The structure forms the foundation for the operation of the collaborative network, and it may either support or constrain the pursuit of the goals of the collaborative network, for example, by promoting or limiting the communication and knowledge sharing of the participants. Processes and practices help building, regulating, and maintaining the different functions of the collaborative network.

However, it is equally important to determine who is involved, what role they play in the collaboration, what kind of competencies they are required to have, and what kind of practices they should follow as they participate and contribute to the operation of the collaborative network. And this should guide the practitioners to pay attention also to the question of participation and what is required from the integrative leaders to participate effectively. In addition to day-to-day practical leadership work in boundary-crossing collaborations, these questions should be considered closely when designing contents of leadership trainings for upcoming integrative leaders. The results section offers a more detailed listing of the roles, behaviours, competencies and practices identified by integrative leadership research providing some support for the work of practitioners.

The review presented in this article has its merits and limitations. The strict conceptual demarcation while choosing the search terms and conducting the data searches may have limited the number of articles in the results. Although there are several articles concentrating on public leadership in general and, more specifically, on shared leadership in collaborative networks, parallel concepts like integrative leadership and collaborative leadership may cause the research to scatter around different leadership concepts even if there is no strict line between these various concepts. As a result, some research articles related to leadership in boundary-crossing collaborations may have been excluded from processing. On the other hand, the strict conceptual focus gives weight to the review and supports the effort to clarify integrative leadership conceptually. Other limitations are related to the decisions made during the review process. The article is bound by the restrictions of the chosen search engines, and the decision to concentrate data searches primarily on peer-reviewed research literature. Therefore, book chapters, conference papers, research reports, and dissertations may have remained in the blind area of the data searches. Moreover, limiting the language selection to English may have strengthened an Anglo-centric perspective.

Several interesting directions open up for future research. According to the results, the role of the actors in the operation of the collaborative network is crucial. The different roles, behaviours, and competencies of integrative leaders and how shared/collective leadership is built based on the individual leader’s leadership skills need to be further researched. In addition, the mutual impact of structures, practices and processes, integrative leaders, and their combined effort in achieving the agreed-upon objectives needs to be clarified as it has been stated that most partnerships never reach their full potential and fail to achieve partnership synergy (Lasker et al., 2001, p. 181). How do structures and governance mechanisms, processes and practices, and participants affect the outcomes of the collaborative networks? Is the failure of collaborative networks due to the action and complexity of the network itself or the complexity of the problems to be solved? Thus far, integrative leadership research has mainly focused on officials in the public sector; however, political leaders and institutions may also work as integrative leaders (see Page, 2010, p. 247). Based on the results of this article, there is only a little research on integrative political leadership so far, and this could be addressed more thoroughly. Also, both conceptual and empirical research are needed to explore different parallel leadership concepts and their individual characteristics. For example, how integrative leadership differs from other leadership concepts like collaborative leadership needs to be researched further. Additionally, exploring how these concepts intersect, and what kind of unifying factors they have would be valuable. Furthermore, there is a need for research that seeks to integrate various leadership concepts and styles into a comprehensive full-range model (see Anderson and Sun, 2017).

Figures

Figure 1

Steps in conducting a research literature review (adapted from Fink (2005, p. 54)) and decisions and results concerning the steps of the review process

Figure 2

The improved integrative public leadership framework

Appendix

Table A1

Table of studies included in the review

	Author (s)	Journal	Nature of study	Methodology	Case/respondents
1	Alban-Metcalfe, J. and Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (2010) UK	The International Journal of Leadership in Public Services	Role-related leadership competencies, leadership style and their relation to different types of problem	Conceptual/theoretical	–
2	Bono, J. E., Shen, W. and Snyder, M. (2010) USA	The Leadership Quarterly	The determinants of integrative, volunteer community leadership	Longitudinal field study; data collection: two questionnaires (1,443 respondents); analysis: not mentioned	43 community leadership programs in US and Canada
3	Bryson, J., Crosby, B. and Stone, M. (2015) USA	Public Administration Review	Frameworks for understanding cross-sec- tor collaboration	Literature review; no. of articles not mentioned	–
4	Bussu, S. and Galanti, M. (2018) UK	Policy and Society	The role of leadership within the coproduction	Narrative literature review; 35 articles	–
5	Candel, J.J.L. (2021) USA	Policy Studies	Integrative capacity and leadership as determinants of policy integration	Conceptual/theoretical	–
6	Cooper, T. (2016) USA	Leadership & Organization Development Journal	The leadership styles emerging within a cross-sector national disaster management network in the Caribbean	Case study; data collection: elite interviews (25 participants); analysis: coding	Government-led cross-sector national disaster management network (NDMN) in the Caribbean
7	Crosby, B. and Bryson, J. (2010) USA	The Leadership Quarterly	Theoretical framework for integrative public leadership	Literature review, case illustrations from data (The Metropolitan Council (MC) and Metro geographic information system (MetroGIS), interviews and other data)	–
8	Crosby, B. C. and Bryson, J. M. (2014) USA	In Day, D. V. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations	The development of integrative leadership theory and integrative leadership practices	Conceptual/theoretical; case illustrations from data	–
9	Crosby, B., Hart, P. and Torfing, J. (2017) USA/The Netherlands/Denmark	Public Management Review	Public managers means to utilise insights about public sector innovation and public value governance	Conceptual/theoretical	–
10	Keränen, A., Malmi, K., Nätti, S. and Ulkuniemi, P. (2023) Finland	Industrial Marketing Management	Organisation's means to develop its organisation identity in a b2b context through integrative leadership	Case study; data collection: interviews (18 participants), and other data; analysis: abductive analysis and coding	Finnish technology company operating in B2B markets
11	Malin, J. and Hackmann, D. (2019) USA	Educational Administration Quarterly	Leadership structures, processes, and practices that affect career and college readiness reform within school district	Case study; data collection: interviews (53 participants), and other data; analysis: coding	Cross-sector collaborative partnership in Marshall School District in US
12	McDermot, K., Kurucz, E. and Colbert, B. (2019) Canada	Organization & Environment	The intentional leadership activities to catalyse cross-sector social partnerships	Multiple case study; data collection: interviews (35 participants), and other data; analysis: inductive analysis	Seven collaborative civil society organisations
13	Morse, R. (2010) USA	The Leadership Quarterly	Integrative public leadership through structure, process, and people	Conceptual/theoretical; case illustrations from data (The Western North Carolina Education Network (WNC EdNET), Whittier Sewer Project, preservation program of the Needmore Tract, e.g. semi-structured interviews and other data)	–
14	Ospina, S. and Foldy, E. (2010) USA	The Leadership Quarterly	The leadership work in social change organisations	Qualititative research; data collection: interviews (no. of participants not mentioned); analysis: four-round analysis	38 non-profit organisations that participated a fve-year leadership recognition program
15	Page, S. (2010) USA	The Leadership Quarterly	Measures to analyse integrative public leadership at the inter-organisational level	Multiple case study; data collection: interviews (no. of participants not mentioned); analysis: coding	Three civic engagement initiatives from the administration of former Seattle Mayor
16	Quick, K. (2017) USA	Leadership	The ambiguity regarding the definitions of and distinctions among collective, plural, and integrative leadership	Ethnographic case study; data collection: active interviews (43 participants) and other data; analysis: interpretive analysis	The city of Grand Rapids, Michigan
17	Redekop, B. (2010) USA	The Leadership Quarterly	Two social movement leaders as exemplars of integrative leadership	Qualititative research; data collection: interviews (no. of participants not mentioned) and other data; analysis: not mentioned	Two leaders of the anti-nuclear weapons movement in US
18	Silvia, C. and McGuire, M. (2010) USA	The Leadership Quarterly	Leadership in multi-actor settings and how integrative leadership differs from leadership in single-agency structures	Survey; data collection: questionnaires (417 respondents); analysis: statistical methods	County emergency managers in US
19	Silvia, C. (2011) USA	State and Local Government Review	Collaborative governance concepts for successful network(integrative) leadership	Conceptual/theoretical	–
20	Soria, K., Snyder, S. and Reinhard, A. (2015) USA	Journal of Leadership Education	Undergraduate college students’ development of an orientation toward integrative leadership	Survey; data collection: questionnaires (5,922 respondents); analysis: statistical methods	The ACT College Outcomes Survey
21	Sumiyana, Wivaqussaniyyah, Darwin, M. and Hadna, A. H. (2022) Indonesia	International Journal of Social Economics	The usefulness of different leadership types in partnership building	Case study; data collection: interviews (13 participants), and other data; analysis: Nvivo 12 (not specified further)	Non-governmental organisation (NGO) working on rural development issues
22	Sun, P. and Anderson, M. (2012) New Zealand/USA	The Leadership Quarterly	The role of transformational leadership on integrative public leadership and how civic capacity is related to them	Conceptual/theoretical	–
23	Torfing, J. and Díaz-Gibson, J. (2016) Denmark/Spain	Pedagogía social	The affect of collaboration in governance networks on social and educational innovation	Conceptual/theoretical	–
24	Wilson-Prangley, A. and Olivier, J. (2016) South Africa	Development Southern Africa	Senior private-sector leaders' boundary-crossing work in South Africa	Qualititative research; data collection: interviews (16 participants); analysis: coding	Senior business leaders in a large company or leading an entity tasked with bridging divides between sectors
25	Zhang, D., Sun, X., Tian, F. and Zhou, S. (2021) China	Chinese Management Studies	The impact of integrative leadership on employee’s innovation performance	Survey and qualititative research; data collection: questionnaire (619 respondents) and interviews (32 participants); analysis: statistical methods and grounded theory	First-line managers and their employees in Chinese corporations

Source(s): Author’s own creation/work