Leadership and Collaborative Governance in transition era from Millennium Development Goals to Sustainable Development Goals: A Systematic Mapping Study


Leadership is an important factor in building collaborative governance, even leadership capacity would also affect the effectiveness of ongoing collaborations. This study aims to describe the map of leadership and collaborative governance studies through a Systematic Mapping Study (SMS) over a period of 5 years. This period was chosen in connection with the transition period from Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs.) The literature studies that were conducted cover the years of 2013 to 2018. The results showed that research on leadership and collaborative governance varied greatly and it was necessary to do a mapping to see the trends. The most widely used research method is qualitative, and the trend of publication shows a very significant decline, especially in 2013-2018. Based on these results, research on leadership with a focus on collaborative governance research is important to be carried out in order to produce various innovations and scientific development (body of knowledge).

Full Text

Introduction The study conducted by Ansell and Gash [1] and Emerson [2] mentioned that there are three important factors that drive the success of public sector collaboration, namely leadership, interdependence, and civic community involvement. In particular, Ansell and Gash [1] explained that in Collaborative governance practices, leadership has a very important role, especially when the level of participation is low, power and resources are unequally distributed, and opposition is high. This is because the presence of a leader is expected to bring stakeholders to collaborate. In line with Ansell and Gash’s views, Sullivan and Skelcher [3] and Senge et al [4] agreed on the importance of individual capacity and leadership in building collaboration. Individual capacities needed in collaboration include: 1) individuals who can be trusted because they can build trust in collaboration and reduce transaction costs, facilitate cooperation, maintain stability, stimulate learning, exchange knowledge and innovation. 2) individual “reticulist” or boundary spanner, namely people (agents) who are able to bring networks together and help others to identify bonds between them and other actors, and are able to create networks, determine how they can work together and the necessary tools, and facilitate the needs required so that they are able to work properly; 3) leadership capacity highly determines the success of collaborative governance. Leadership is needed to ensure a sense of ownership of the actors or stakeholders and organizational commitment in carrying out collaboration and supporting new ways to increase success. Leadership capacity is needed to ensure stakeholders’ sense of ownership and build organizational commitment in carrying out collaborative practices to support new ways to improve success. The importance of leadership role in achieving governance practices success is also expressed by Neo and Geraldine [5] who explained that dynamic governance is the result of a leader’s ambition and desire to ensure the survival of his community. The same thing is emphasized by Ansell and Gash [1] which stated that the success of the collaborative process will be largely determined by facilitative leadership. The role of facilitative leadership is crucial in bringing stakeholders together in the negotiation process and engaging with each other in a collaborative spirit. Leadership capacity is needed in Collaborative Governance, starting from examining current stakeholder networks, connecting them with each other, facilitating the exploration of solutions to solve public problems, to engaging stakeholders to mobilize the resources needed in implementing innovative policies [6]. In collaborative governance practices, leadership aspect is needed in stimulating creativity by providing diverse knowledge to stakeholders in order to create new ideas and innovations. Innovative policies could be achieved by collaborative leaders who are able to connect stakeholders with the information needed, and those who are able to share success with other parties [6]. The leadership aspect in collaborative governance is also important to empower and represent weaker or minority interests. Ozawa [1], explained that a transformative technique through a mediation procedure could help bring a balance of power among the stakeholders. Facilitative leadership could help stakeholders in exploring various possibilities for mutual benefits. The last two decades have been mankind’s steppingstones in welcoming the new millennia after the Industrial Revolution and the rapid development of science. Various historical dynamics and regional and global social conditions cause the emergence of various leader figures with their own unique features. The establishment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which is a crystallization of expectations that adapted to conditions in the early 2000s, requires strong figures to mobilize resources to achieve these goals. The concept of leadership is getting increasingly relevant after the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were compiled. Updating the MDGs to SDGs adds an element of sustainability where collaboration is increasingly required to materialize. Therefore, further research on the concept of leadership is relevant to do. Collaboration requires strong leader figures to embrace and harmonize sectors that contribute to each other. The study in this article is important because it aims to describe the leadership research mapping in the 6-year period from 2013 to 2018, so that subsequent leadership researches could precisely fill in the subfields that have not been accommodated. In this mapping study, three sources are used as references. The three sources are ProQuest, Emerald Insight, JSTOR. These sources were chosen as the ground theory to look at the main cases of leadership and collaborative governance. Furthermore, this article is solely used to answer these following three research questions: 1. What is the focus of leadership and collaborative governance research? 2. What are the method and the research type of the mapping that have been completed? 3. What is the publication trend on leadership and collaborative governance research from 2013 to 2018? The concept used in this study is leadership and collaborative governance. Literature review of the two concepts in this sub-topic attempts to present basic definitions and the relationship between the two aspects. This was done to assist the process of systematic mapping study in this study. What is Leadership? The concept of leadership stretches far from the early human civilization to early modern times and continues to the latest contemporary developments today. The conceptualization of a leader has been known for a long time. History records many names of figures who were considered leaders, but it was not until the early 18th century that research literature began to increasingly write about leadership. The timeline of Leadership concept can be divided into three terms [7]. Leadership is carried out by a leader who has a duty to carry out the leadership activities. Stephen P. Robbins [8] defined leadership as the ability to influence a group towards the achievement of goals, while Peter Guy [9] explained leadership…is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal. Furthermore, Stogdill’s in Bertocci [10: 5] defined leadership as:… an interaction between members or a group. Leaders are agents of change, persons whose acts of affect other people more than other people’s acts of affect them. Leadership occurs when one group member modifies the motivation or competencies of others in the group. Another opinion is conveyed by Gibson, Ivancevich and Donnelly [10] who defined leadership as:… as the process by which one individual influences others to accomplish desired goals without coercive types of influence. Leadership is an attempt to use non-coercive influence to motivate individuals to accomplish some goal. This view shows that leaders have a big role in achieving common goals with the power and influence they have. The existence of leaders can be divided into two categories. First of all, formal leaders are people who are appointed by certain organizations/institutions as leaders, based on decisions and official appointments to hold positions in the organizational structure, with all the rights and obligations associated with them, to achieve organizational goals. Meanwhile, informal leaders are those who do not get a formal appointment as leader, but because they have a number of superior qualities, they reach a position as individuals who are able to influence the psychological condition and behavior of a group or society [11]. In other words, a leader could be present in formal and non-formal organizations, where there is a common goal to be achieved. Meanwhile, Yukl [12] explained that the concept of Leadership could be seen from two sides, as a special role and as a process of creating social influence. Each person could exercise the role with differences that are tailored to the characteristics of the group or organization. Specific roles that include leadership roles that have responsibilities and functions that cannot be divided too broadly because they involve organizational effectiveness. The role of leadership is emphasized on a series of tasks that need to be done by each leader in relation to his subordinates. In connection with the role of leadership, Covey [13] classified it into three categories; first, path finding, where the leader has a role as a determiner of the organization’s vision and mission. Second, aligning, where the leader plays a role in ensuring that every standard operational procedure and business process in the organization supports the achievement of the organization’s vision. Third, empowering, where the leader has a role in building the spirit of organizational members, and stimulating the development of potential, talents, ideas and creativity of every organization member in order to accelerate the achievement of the organization’s vision. Leadership is an important factor in building Collaborative Governance, leadership capacity will also affect the effectiveness of ongoing collaboration. Page (2010) explained that the implementation of collaborative governance faces challenges in the form of sharing the power and resources of each party involved, and how to align these resources. Therefore, the leadership component is indispensable in empowering the massive existing resources. Leadership context in the 21st century, especially in the public sector, has changed along with the development of the concept of Collaborative Governance. The current Leadership concept has changed from a hierarchical paradigm to a networking and partnership paradigm [15]. The Concept of Collaborative Governance After understanding the concept of leadership as an important factor in building collaborative governance, the next concept that needs to be explored is the concept of collaborative governance. The concept of collaborative governance is seen by Purdy [16] as a process of power collaboration from several stakeholders to develop sustainable, effective solutions. Emerson, Tina and Stephen [17] defined collaborative governance as: “the processes and structures of public policy decision making and management that engage people contructively across the boundaries of public agencies, levels of government, and/or the public, private and civic spheres in order to carry out a public purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished”. The points that can be learned from the definition by Emerson, Tina and Stephen [17] are that collaborative governance is a process that occurs across boundaries; involves several actors from various sectors; and strives to achieve a vision that cannot be achieved without collaboration between these actors. Cross-border means that the activities of achieving the mission and formulating solutions are not only carried out in a fragmented manner separated by dividing lines of authority. Public problems that are faced together are not faced by each affected party, but faced in aggregate. This cross-border point then continues to the next point, namely the actors involved in collaborative governance. Emerson, Tina and Stephen [17] explained that there are three parties involved, which are public agencies and levels of government, the private sector and the civic spheres. The authority, power, and resources owned by each actor involved are collaborated to achieve a common problem-solving vision. This is the third point of the definition of collaborative governance by Emerson, Tina and Stephen [17] that there is a goal that could only be achieved when there is performance collaboration between the actors or stakeholders. Thus, etymologically, collaborative governance is a decisionmaking process that involves stakeholders from the public sector, private sector, non-private sector, and society to solve public issues. McDougall [18] explained that in collaborating, the parties or sectors project three distinctive characteristics, namely 1) consciously and explicitly base decision making in social learning and critical reflection; 2) emphasize inclusion and equity in governance; and 3) strive for balanced and strategic relations with other actors or groups, including seeking to effectively manage conflict. Leadership is the capacity of a leader of each party in directing/fostering/ facilitating collaboration. Leaders who have the capacity to drive collaborative activities are leaders who are able to forge connections between actors and maximize the utility of each of the actors’ knowledge Welbrock [19]. Research Methods Understanding the research position (State of the Art) is important in conducting a study. Based on this, researchers can find out whether the research carried out really has novelty or something new in its findings. Thus, in order to find a research position on the topic of Leadership and Collaborative Governance, researchers conducted a Systematic Mapping Study. Researchers use electronic databases to find articles that discuss leadership. The tool of analysis used in this research is Systematic Mapping Study. According to Kitchenham [20], Systematic Mapping Study (SMS) is a secondary study rooted in the Study Literature Review (SLR), which was originally introduced to medical research. The implementation of SLR is used to identify, evaluate, and interpret all available and relevant literature related to the research question or domain of interest [20-22]. Kitchenham [20] stated that the main reasons for conducting SLR are: first, summarizing existing evidence on the topic; second, to identify gaps in current research and provide suggestions for future studies; and third, to provide a background for positioning new research activities. Research Questions The research questions in this paper concentrate on categorizing research with the topic of Leadership and the research position of Collaborative governance as one of the focuses in Leadership research. Below is Table 1 that shows the overall research questions. Table 1 Research Questions and Description Research Questions Description What is the distribution of research focuses on the topic of leadership? What is the position of the research on Collaborative governance as one of the focuses of the Leadership research topic? The results provide an overview of the focus distribution of the leadership research. In addition, the results also reflect the position of Collaborative governance research as one of the focuses in Leadership research. What are the methods and types of research from the mapping that has been carried out? Investigation of research methods and types. The results of the investigation could reveal gaps from previous studies. What is the trend of Leadership research publication over time (2013-2018)? This question shows the trends in leadership research publications over time (2013-2018). Source: Modified by the researchers based on [23-25] Steps of Findings The SMS study in this research adopted the search process from the research of Petersen et al. [22]. In SMS process, every step that is carried out has a result and a systematic map. In Figure 1, the researchers illustrate the complete SMS process used in the study, referring to the research conducted and based on instructions by Kitchenham [20] and Petersen et al [22]. Source: Modified by the researchers based on [20], [22], own calculation Source of Data Researcher conducted an online search on an electronic database with the following description: Table 2 Result of Journal Search from Electronic Database Source Name All Papers Journal Relevant Journal ProQuest 485 483 52 Emerald Insight 90 82 21 JSTOR 203 203 14 Total 778 768 87 Source: by author In this study of Systematic Mapping Study, the researchers collected 87 articles which were analyzed to find research focus, scope of research and publication trend from year to year. Classification Scheme In this study, the researchers developed a classification scheme. This scheme then became the basis for the analysis and classification of articles by Petersen et al. [22]. The following is Table 3 which describes the article classification process. Table 3 Classification Categories Research Types Description Validation Research A new investigative method and has not yet been applied in practice. (experiment/observation) Evaluasi Research The investigative method is implemented in practice and presented in the evaluation method Solution Proposal Solutions to problems are put forward, these proposed solutions can be new or applicable approaches and existing approaches. Philosophical Paper This study introduces a new perspective on something that exists using a taxonomy or conceptual framework. Experience Paper This study is based on the author’s personal experience on what and how something is done in practice. Methods Description Qualitative Method Qualitative method is presented with rapid assessment process, secondary data, ethnographics, focus group discussions, indepth interviews, journals and language analysis. Quantitative Method Quantitative method is presented with sample design, hypothesis and testing, all of which are statistical formulations. Source: Modified by the researchers based on [22, 24-27] Result and Discussion Focus Spread on Leadership Research This section describes research focuses. Researchers classified 87 articles in research topic areas (research focuses) with categories: Leadership in public health, Leadership in development, Leadership style & practice, Leadership in public education, Leadership in public administrative, Leadership in non-public sector (private organization, non provit organization, and firm), Leadership in public security (police, military, law), dan Leadership in Collaborative Governance. Fig. 2. Research Focuses Distribution Percentage Source: Systematic Mapping Study Results by author, 2019 Figure 2 presented above is an illustration of the research focus distribution on Leadership topic shown in percentage. The most studied research focus is Leadership style & practice at [20] articles (22.9 %), Leadership in public health at 18 articles (20.7 %), Leadership in development at 16 articles (18.5 %), Leadership in non-public sector (private organization, non-provit organization, and firm) at 11 articles (12.6 %), Leadership in public education, Leadership in public administrative, Leadership in public security (police, military, law) each at 6 articles (6,9 %), and finally Leadership in collaborative governance at 4 articles (4.6 %). Further research focus description could be seen in the form of table in Table 4 below Table 4 The Spread of Research Focus Research Focus Amount Percentage Leadership in public health 18 20.7 Leadership in development 16 18.5 Leadership style & practice 20 22.9 Ledership in public education 6 6.9 Laedership in public administrative 6 6.9 Leadership in non-public sector (private organization, non-provit organization, and firm) 11 12.6 Leadership in public security (police, military, law) 6 6.9 Leadership in Collaborative Governance 4 4.6 Total 87 100 Source: Systematic Mapping Study Results by author, 2019 Looking at the existing classification schemes, it can be understood that the research position on Collaborative governance in Leadership topic is included in the research focus of Leadership in Collaborative Governance. Based on the search results, the focus on collaborative governance has the lowest percentage, which is only 4.6 %. Analysis on the outcome of the Leadership research theme globally requires a broad perspective due to its massive scale. One of the ways to achieve global perspective could be done by looking at the annual reports of two world-scale organizations in the most prominent fields, namely the World Bank and the World Health Organization. Studying and comparing the findings of SMS Leadership with reports from the two world organizations help us in understanding why the theme of Leadership in public health is used the most, while the theme of collaborative governance is used the least. The period under consideration is adjusted to the SMS conducted in this study, namely from 2013 to 2018 (6-year period). In 2013, World Bank (WB) in its report explained that the focus of achieving the vision to end extreme poverty and promoting shared prosperity is through achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The central issues raised in 2013 were climate change, regional conflicts, education and health. In the same year, WHO in its annual report raised the issue of overall health service coverage. WHO also explained the role of research as a fundamental element in life, especially in the health sector. In 2014, WB in its report raised a new central issue, namely inclusive and sustainable growth. One of the concerns in the WB’s 2014 report was the emergence of Governance concept in one aspect towards the vision of ending extreme poverty. In the same year, the issue raised by WHO was maternal mortality. In 2015, a shift could be noticed in the orientation of the issue in the WB annual report, which was the focus on the realization of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This indicated that the focus shifted from the MDGs to the SDGs. The same thing is also explained in the annual report by WHO, which is focusing on health issues that are in line with the SDGs. In 2016, three issues that emerged in the WB report were climate change, pandemic, and forced displacement. This year the WB raises one of the issues related to health, which is pandemic, and climate change that also appeared in a 2013 report. In the same year, WHO emphasizes the issue of SDGs by juxtaposing the monitoring aspect as its main element. In 2017, WB conveyed three priority areas, namely economic resilience, human resource development, and economic growth acceleration. The most notable thing about the year 2017 is the emergence of HR issues. In 2017, WHO described six main priority actions, namely 1. Intersectoral actions from various stakeholders; 2. Strengthening health system; 3. Realizing justice and human rights; 4. Sustainable financing; 5. Research and innovation; and 6. Monitoring and evaluation. The highlight in this case is the emergence of a collaborative issue on action number 1 by WHO. The review of the reports produced within 5 years from the two international organizations in two prominent fields shows that there are links with issues that are being prioritized in those years with the production of Leadership research in the same period. The research on Leadership in public health is the most conducted research compared to other Leadership themes because health issues were emphasized in the 4 out of 5 years of the reporting period by both WB and WHO. Collaborative governance was only mentioned once in the WB report in 2017, showing minimal research interest in this issue. Research Methods and Types in Leadership Research Fig. 3. The Spread of Research Based on Research Method Source: Systematic Mapping Study Results by author, 2019 Based on data from the results of the Systematic Mapping Study that has been conducted, it is revealed that the majority of research on Leadership is conducted using qualitative method. The number of studies using qualitative method reaches 56 studies or 64.4 % of the total research mapping. Furthermore, quantitative method is at 23 studies or 26.4 %. Finally, mixed methods occupy a small portion of research at 8 studies or 9.2 %. The essence of leadership research which emphasizes the study of individuals (leaders) using qualitative method is more popular because it is more relevant to address Leadership issues. Yukl [12] explains that Leadership is a study of the specific role of individuals in creating social influence. Such approach makes qualitative research method more relevant. This is also evident from the results of the SMS, which shows that 64 % of leadership research uses qualitative research method. Further discussion is carried out by mapping the research types from the mapped researches. There are five types of research on Collaborative Governance, namely 1) Validation Research; 2) Evaluation Research; 3) Solution Proposal; 4) Philosophical Paper; 5) Experience Paper. Figure 5 below illustrates the distribution of the mapped research based on the research type. Source: Systematic Mapping Study Results by author, 2019 The research type that is mostly conducted is Experience Paper, which is 42.6 % or 37 studies. The second largest type of research in research mapping is Philosophical Papers, which is 31 % or 27 studies. Furthermore, Validation Research reaches 13.8 % or 12 studies. Two other types of research occupy a small portion of studies, which consist of 6.9 % or 6 studies for Solution Proposal and 5 studies or 5.7 % for Evaluation Research. The interesting fact is that the existing data reveals that Experience Paper attracts the highest interest in Leadership research. Experience Paper was previously described as a research based on an individual’s personal experience on what and how something is done in practice. Amit (2009) explained that experience in Leadership highly determines the way an individual leads. The key word for this matter is experience. Yukl [12] also explained that Leadership is essentially a science of behaviour. This is in line with the concept of experience, and it also explains why Experience Paper is the most common research type found in Leadership research from 2013 to 2018. Further mapping descriptions were carried out with a combination of mapping research types and research methods. Systematic Mapping Study that was conducted revealed that: 1. Leadership research that uses qualitative research method with Experience Paper is the most widely conducted research (24 researches). 2. The second most widely conducted research is Philosophical Paper using qualitative research method (23 researches). 3. Next, Validation Research using quantitative method (11 researches). 4. Experience Paper using quantitative research method and Experience Paper using qualitative method (each contributes 7 researches). 5. Then, Evaluation Research and Solution Proposal using qualitative method as well as Philosophical Paper using quantitative method (each contributes 4 researches). 6. The researches that only account to (1 research) are Validation Research using qualitative method, Evaluation Research using mixed methods and Solution Proposals with mixed methods. 7. Researches that have never been done are Validation Research using mixed methods, Evaluation Research using quantitative method, Solution Proposals using quantitative methods and Philosophical Papers using mixed methods. The followings are Figure 5 and Table 5 that illustrate the distribution of research mapping, categorized based on research types and methods. 30 Fig. 5. The Spread of Method Types dan Research Methods Source: Systematic Mapping Study Results by author, 2019 Table 5 Research Types and Methods Distribution Research Type Quantitative Qualitative Mix Methods Validation Research 11 1 - Evaluation Research - 4 1 Solution Proposal - 4 1 Philosophical Paper 4 23 - Experience Paper 7 24 7 Source: Systematic mapping study results by author, 2019 Publication Trend of Leadership Research (2013-2018) Figure 6 is an illustration of research trend published in electronic database media: ProQuest, Emerald, and Jstor between 2013 to 2019. Based on the results, the Leadership research publication decreases from 2013 to 2017 and shows an increasing trend from 2017 to 2018. Based on this graph, we can see that the highest publications occur in 2013, namely 20 publications. Fig. 6. The Spread of Research Focus Source: Systematic Mapping Study Results by author, 2019 Figure 6 shows a gradual decline in Leadership research production from 2013 to 2017. An interesting phenomenon occurs in 2018 where the production of Leadership research increases after consistent decline throughout the 4 years prior. If we observe the analysis of the WB and WHO annual reports in the same year (2013 to 2018), it can be seen that there is a shift in issues that have emerged on a global scale. Until 2015, the components of the MDGs were still world priorities. The renewal of global perspective in entering the new millennium where the issues are still partial has not yet emphasized the importance of Leadership concept. Starting 2016, the priority shifted to sustainability issue through the emergence of the SDGs composition. The goals component which is oriented towards sustainability issue puts forward human resource component, so that related issues such as leadership and collaboration have started to become research interests. This is shown by the increase in Leadership research production in the following year, which is in 2018. Conclusion Based on the results of the discussion above, the following are several conclusion points that could be drawn: 1.) The research focus that is intensely studied is Leadership style & practice (22.9 %. and the least researched focus is Leadership in Collaborative governance (4, 6 %); 2.) Furthermore, the most used method is qualitative method at 64.4 %, and the least used method is mixed method at 9.2 %; 3.) Then, the research type that is most widely used is Experience Paper at 42.6 % and the lowest type is Evaluation Research at 5.7 %; 4.) Analysis based on the method and research type shows that Leadership Research which uses qualitative research method with Experience Paper type is the most widely conducted research (24 researches). Research that has never been done is Validation Research using mixed methods, Evaluation Research using quantitative method, Solution Proposals using quantitative method, and Philosophical Papers using mixed methods; 5.) In general, the number of publications on Leadership shows a decreasing trend from 2013 to 2017. Future Research The results of this study would significantly help future Leadership researchers to be able to precisely select the sub-fields of Leadership to be studied, including the research focus, methods and types of research that are used the least. This is expected to provide variety and enrichment of leadership research that has novelty values.

About the authors

Muh A. Muslim

Universitas Indonesia

Email: muhazismuslim01@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8768-9100

PhD, Lecturer of the Department of Public Administration

16424, Depok, West Java and Salemba, Jakarta, Indonesia

Eko Prasojo

Universitas Indonesia

Email: e_prasojo@yahoo.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3904-0814

Professor, Lecturer of the Department of Public Administration

16424, Depok, West Java and Salemba, Jakarta, Indonesia

Roy V. Salomo

Universitas Indonesia

Author for correspondence.
Email: roy.v09@ui.ac.id
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2501-7629

PhD, Lecturer of the Department of Public Administration

16424, Depok, West Java and Salemba, Jakarta, Indonesia


  1. Ansell C., Alison G. Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2008;8:543-71.
  2. Emerson K., Tina N., Stephen B. An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance. Journal of Administration Research and Theory. 2012;22(1):1-29.
  3. Sullivan H., Dan S.C. Working Across Boundaries; Collaboration in Public Services. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2002.
  4. Senge P. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of Learning Organization (revised edition). New York: Double D; 2007.
  5. Boon S.N., Geraldine C. Dynamic Governance, Embedding Culture, Capabilities and Change in Singapore. World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd; 2007.
  6. Ricard L.M, Erik H.K., Jenny M.L., Tamyko Y. Assessing Public Leadership Styles for Innovation: A Comparison of Copenhagen, Rotterdam and Barcelona. Public Management Review. 2017;19(2):134-156.
  7. Ogbonna E., Lloyd C.H. Leadership Style. Organizational Culture and Performance: Empirical Evidence from UK Companies. Journal of Human Resource Management. 2000;11(4):766-788.
  8. Robbins S.P. Essentials of Organizational Behavior (2nd Ed). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall International, Inc; 1988.
  9. Peters B.G. Meta-Governance and Public Management. Dalam: Osborne, Stephen P. (Ed.). The New Public Governance: Emerging Perspectives on Theory and Practice of Public Governance. New York: Routledge; 2010.
  10. Bertocci D.I. Leadership in Organizations: There Is a Difference between Leaders and Managers. Lanham: University Press of America, Inc; 2009.
  11. Kartono K. Leader and Leadership, What Is the Abnormal Leader. Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo Persada; 2009.
  12. Yukl G. Leadership in Organization. Translated by: Sampe Maselinus, Rita Tondok Andarika. Second Edition. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc; 2009.
  13. Covey S.R. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Tangerang: Binarupa Aksara Publisher; 2011.
  14. Stephen P. Integrative Leadership for Collaborative Governance: Civic Engagement in Seattle. The Leadership Quarterly. 2010;21(2):246-263.
  15. Heather G., Ricardo S.M. Collaborative Leadership Development for Local Government Officials: Exploring Competencies and Program Impact. Public Administration Quarterly. 2013;37(1):7-102.
  16. Purdy J.M. A Framework for Assessing Power in Collaborative Governance Processes. Public Administration Review. 2012;72:409-417.
  17. Emerson K., Tina N. Collaborative Governance Regimes. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press; 2015.
  18. McDougall C., et.al. Does Adaptive Collaborative Forest Governance Affect Poverty? Participatory Action Research in Nepal’s Community Forests. Society & Natural Resources. 2013;26(11):1235-1251.
  19. Wellbrock W. Operational Interfaces. A Key to More Collaborative Modes of Governance. Wageningen: Wageningen University; 2013.
  20. Kitchenham B.A., Dyba T., Jorgensen M. Evidence-based Software Engineering. IEEE Computer Society. 2004; 1: 273-281.
  21. Kitchenham B., Charters S. Guidelines for Performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering. Technical Report EBSE-2007-01. School of Computer Science and Mathematics, Keele University; 2007.
  22. Petersen K., et al. Systematic Mapping Studies in Software Engineering. 12th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering; 2008.
  23. Banaeianjahromi N., Smolander K. What do We Know about the Role of Enterprise Architecture in Enterprise Integration? A Systematic Mapping Study. Journal of Enterprise Information Management. 2016;29(1):140-164.
  24. Purbasari R., Wijaya C., Rahayu N. The Entrepreneurial Ecosystem as A Network-Rich System: A Systematic Mapping Study. Academy Of Entrepreneurship Journal; Arden. 2019;25(2):1-17.
  25. Muslim M.A., Prasojo E., Jannah L.M. Collaborative Governance for Poverty Alleviation: A Systematic Mapping Study. RUDN Journal of Public Administration. 2021;8(1):20-36.
  26. Musianto L. The Difference Between the Quantitative Approach and Qualitative Approach in The Research Method. Jurnal Manajemen & Kewirausahaan. 2002;4(2):123-126.
  27. Wieringa R., Maiden N., Mead N., Rolland C. Requirements Engineering Paper Classification and Evaluation Criteria: A Proposal and a Discussion. Requirements Engineering. 2006;11(1):102-107.

Copyright (c) 2022 Muslim M.A., Prasojo E., Salomo R.V.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies