Leadership Capabilities

Some scholars argue that the organic structures support innovation. Already in 1995, Olson et al.

(1995) noted that when implementing open and informal communication structures, barriers between individuals located in different functional groups were reduced, in turn creating an atmosphere where innovative ideas are proposed, tested and critiqued while keeping the financial and social risks at a minimum (Olson et al., 1995, p. 51). Su et al.’s (2019) findings support this, as they conclude that an organic organisational structure has a positive impact on managerial

innovation for three reasons: 1) the decentralised decision-making processes force the organisation to identify the weaknesses of its managerial capabilities, which lead to the development of new and improved managerial practices, 2) the de-emphasis on formal rules and procedures encourages experimentation and the open communication structures facilitate absorbing external knowledge and knowledge-sharing of the internal knowledge created through the experimentation, 3) the focus on adaptiveness, flexibility and participatory decision-making decrease resistance to managerial innovation (Su et al., 2019, p. 256). Furthermore, Su et al. (2019) argue that generally, organic structures are beneficial for a company when tasks are non-routine and the environment is uncertain, whereas mechanistic structures are more beneficial to an organisation’s performance when tasks are routine and the environment is certain (Su et al., 2019, p. 255).

(Bovaird, 2007, p. 847; Agger & Tortzen, 2015, p. 22; Torfing et al., 2019, p. 810). The role of the enabler might be difficult for some public employees to undertake, as it requires not previously applied skills, such as mobilising the resources of users and volunteers (Torfing et al., 2019, p.

810). Similarly, Hartley et al. (2013, p. 827) propose that the traditional role perception of public actors entails that they view themselves as the ones who have the professional competence to make valid decisions. Instead, they have to shift to viewing themselves as facilitators who are

orchestrating collaborative arenas in which ideas and input from a range of stakeholders are harvested. For some public employees, shifting the role perception from viewing oneself as an efficient manager in charge and control of an organisation to a facilitator orchestrating co-creation processes can pose a challenge (Torfing et al., 2019, p. 810).

It is thus proposed that the role of public managers in co-creation processes is to facilitate and support the collaborative relationships between the public and private actors, acting as facilitators of the self-organisation of the stakeholders, also referred to as taking the role of the enabler (Sørensen

& Torfing, 2018, p. 412; Crosby et al., 2017, p. 656). Moreover, the role of the enabler can arguably be used as an umbrella term for more distinct leadership roles public employees must undertake to facilitate the co-creation process, as the concept of the enabler addresses the need for overall facilitation, but not which leadership skills undertaking this role entails. However, in the literature on co-creation in the public sector, scholars (e.g. Sørensen & Torfing, 2012; Torfing, 2019; Crosby et al., 2017) commonly distinguish between three types of leadership roles to be exercised and alternated between when managing and leading processes of co-creation, being the convener, the facilitator and the catalyst. These will be addressed in the following.

The convener’s responsibility is, first of all, to bring together the appropriate stakeholders, which involves identifying stakeholders with relevant experiences and resources and motivating them to engage in collaborations (Sørensen & Torfing, 2012, p. 16). In this relation, Kazadi et al. (2016) more specifically propose for organisations to draw on their stakeholder networking capabilities, meaning to engage in networking opportunities within different stakeholders’ networks and communicate on the types of collaboration partners needed to find and attract appropriate stakeholders, as well as to conduct stakeholder competency mapping, for instance through

exploratory meetings with stakeholders, to enable continuous monitoring of their competences (pp.

534-535). Further, the convener is to encourage interactions and exchange of resources, ideas and

information between the stakeholders to generate joint solutions (Sørensen & Torfing, 2012, p. 16;

Torfing, 2019, p. 7), while providing a joint direction for the collaborative process and promote an alignment of expectations for the process and outcome (Hartley et al., 2013, p. 827).

Moreover, co-creation processes commonly entail a strong inclination for citizens to become volunteers since they often have a strong vision for the area that citizens can identify with and thus support and are committed to (Sørensen & Torfing, 2018, pp. 401; 404-407). This leaves entails a great task for the convener, as it is the responsibility of the convener to provide a joint direction and vision for the collaborative process, as touched upon above. As volunteers are not hired, and their participation in co-creation project is highly mission-driven, as touched upon above, they cannot be managed through orders and positive and negative sanctions in the same way public employees can (Sørensen & Torfing, 2012, pp. 9-10; Torfing et al., 2019, p. 815). Therefore, the leadership of public volunteers must rely on having a strong vision that the volunteers can identify with, motivation, new knowledge acquisition, responsibility to the actors and willingness to take a step back and let things happen, providing room for the actors to self-organise the collaboration (Sørensen & Torfing, 2012, p. 10; Torfing & Siebers, 2018, pp. 199-202).

While the convener is focused on bringing the right stakeholders together, the role of the facilitator is concerned with getting the stakeholders to collaborate. The facilitator supports collaborative processes by arranging meetings and ensuring continuous and smooth communication with and between stakeholders (Sørensen & Torfing, 2012). Part of the role as the facilitator is furthermore to create mutual trust amongst the stakeholders, which contributes to increasing the quality of the collaboration (Sørensen & Torfing, 2012, p. 16). According to Huxham & Vangen (2013) trust can be defined as “the anticipation that something will be forthcoming in return for the efforts that are put into the collaboration - a faith in the partners’ will and ability to help materialize the sought after collaborative advantage” (p. 154). Building trusting relationships is an ongoing requirement for successful collaboration (Bryson et al., 2006, p. 48) and is also part of a hands-on tool of metagovernance, namely process management, as it focuses on facilitating collaboration by strengthening relations and building trust. Trust between collaborative partners can be built by sharing information and knowledge, demonstrating competency and good intentions (Crosby &

Bryson, 2010, p. 223; Bryson et al., 2006, pp. 47-48), as well as through a series of collaborative

“small wins”, through which trust can be built by carrying out low-risk initiatives that lead to a

mutual experience of an advantage gained (Bryson, 1988, p. 13; Huxham & Vangen, 2013, p. 160).

On the contrary, trust can be undermined by taking unilateral action and failure to follow through on agreed actions (Crosby & Bryson, 2010, p. 223; Bryson et al., 2006, pp. 48).

The role of the facilitator is moreover to create a feeling of joint ownership of the projects, which will also help to increase the quality of the collaboration between the stakeholders (Sørensen &

Torfing, 2012, p. 16). Martinaityte et al. (2020) have studied how feelings of personal ownership and group ownership can affect engagement in a project. They define the concept of psychological ownership as being when an individual feels psychologically tied to an object or a project and therefore is motivated to make an effort to benefit the project (Martinaityte et al., 2020, pp. 302-303). They distinguish between individual psychological ownership, which is a state in which individuals feel like the target of ownership is personally theirs, and collective psychological

ownership, which refers to when a group of individuals collectively feel like the target of ownership is “ours” (Martinaityte et al., 2020, p. 304). They argue that when members of a team feel

ownership of a project, it drives them to invest more effort in the project and to be more creative, and that psychological ownership in general positively affects affective commitment, work engagement and innovation (Martinaityte et al., 2020, pp. 302-303). Thus, this emphasises the importance of the role of the facilitator, as it is the facilitator who is responsible for securing a feeling of ownership amongst the collaborating stakeholders as stated above.

Lastly, the role of the catalyst is concerned with challenging the stakeholders to think outside the box through inspirational activities while developing and implementing new and bold solutions (Sørensen & Torfing, 2012, p. 16; Torfing, 2019, p. 7). Ways to do this can for example be through inviting new stakeholders into the collaboration to bring in new knowledge and thus expanding the knowledge base of the entire co-creation group, arranging inspirational field trips, and creating situations that might force the stakeholders out of their comfort zones and challenge them to create and rethink existing solutions (Sørensen & Torfing, 2012, p. 16; Crosby et al., 2017, p. 661).

According to Torfing (2019), the presence of a catalyst in a project within the public sector represents a clear distinction from traditional forms of leadership within the public sector.

Moreover, as the role of the catalyst is to spur experimentation and support new ways of thinking that are not necessarily successful the first time around, it stands in opposition to having a focus on strict performance management, as this more disciplining control mechanism can contribute to

decreasing the intrinsic motivation for the project some stakeholders find in the way of working with experimentation and new ways of thinking (Torfing, 2019, pp. 7-8).

The three leadership roles described above can be exercised successively or in different

combinations with changing sequences and feedback loops, yet also often have to be exercised simultaneously. The roles can all be carried out by the same person, however, they tend to be

enacted by different people depending on their skills and position (Sørensen & Torfing, 2012, p. 17;

Crosby et al., 2017, p. 661). Further, as argued by Torfing (2019), undertaking the leadership roles of the convener, facilitator and catalyst increases the capacity to drive innovation processes across organisational boundaries (p. 7).

In summary, co-creation processes with multiple stakeholders must be carefully managed by public employees to spur value-creation. The exercise of metagovernance is important in this relation, as hands-on and hands-off tools of metagovernance enable leaders to provide a direction for projects without undermining the capacity of the actors to organise without interference from a public authority. Organisational structures range from mechanistic, characterised by a clear hierarchy and centralised decision-making to organic, characterised by organisational adaptiveness, flexibility and decentralised decision-making. Scholars argue that organic organisational structures are better suited to facilitate collaboration with multiple stakeholders while supporting innovation. To lead the co-creation process, public employees must undertake the role as the enabler, manifested in the leadership roles of the convener, the facilitator and the catalyst, rather than the reliever.