Feature Article: Integrative Leadership: Observations from a University of Minnesota Seminar Series

Barbara C. Crosby and Jay Kiedrowski


Barbara CrosbyJay KiedrowskiThe University of Minnesota created a new all-university, interdisciplinary Center for Integrative Leadership in the summer of 2006. Co-sponsored by the Carlson School of Management and the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, the center defined integrative leadership as “fostering collective action across boundaries to advance the common good.”

During the 2006-7 academic year, the center held a series of seminars to discover common aspects of integrative leadership aimed at complex regional, national and global problems. Learnings from the seminars will be presented at three levels: individual, organizational, and societal.

“The problems of inner city education, global warming, health care here and abroad — none of these problems can be solved by any one institution. Not any one government, one corporation, one nonprofit. A collaborative model is needed…We need a new kind of leadership.”

—Bill George, former CEO of Medtronic and leadership author.


In the 21st century, a new vision of leadership is needed to respond to local, regional, national, and global opportunities and challenges. More than ever, leaders must integrate knowledge and talent from individuals, units, and organizations in the business, nonprofit, and government sectors to advance the common good. There is a vital need today for integrative leadership. There also is a vital need for scholarly work to understand and advance proven concepts inherent in integrative leadership.

The University of Minnesota created a new all-university, interdisciplinary Center for Integrative Leadership (CIL) in the summer of 2006. Co-sponsored by the Carlson School of Management and the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, the center has defined integrative leadership as “fostering collective action across boundaries to advance the common good.” The center is dedicated to multidisciplinary leadership research, formal classroom education, public education, and leadership development within the university and the community at large to solve some of the most challenging issues of our time.

During the 2006-7 academic year, the Center for Integrative Leadership held 10 seminars with regional and national speakers (See Attachment) to learn more about integrative leadership and refine the center’s research agenda. The purpose of this paper is threefold:

  1. to connect integrative leadership with recent trends in leadership studies;
  2. to consider previous scholarship on leadership at the inter-organizational, community, national, and global levels; and,
  3. to review the discussions at those 10 seminars and identify themes that can guide the work of the center.

Despite the growing consensus that the fast pace of change and increasing complexity of the modern world requires new approaches to leadership, little progress has been made toward defining, teaching, or studying integrative leadership. Yet integrative leadership is precisely the behavior most likely to lead organizations, communities, and society forward in times of increased interconnection and rapid change. For this reason, the CIL focuses explicitly on understanding and developing this type of leadership. The center’s aims are deep and broad, including a) convening world–class researchers to advance the study of integrative leadership; b) working to enhance the likelihood that integrative leadership is practiced at the University of Minnesota and in our region; c) bringing together world leaders from all sectors to address chronic community and societal problems; and, d) advancing the capability and performance of those who study at the university and then enter various societal roles.

The Center for Integrative Leadership at the University of Minnesota will offer generations of new leaders the knowledge and experience necessary to enact this new vision, which bridges styles, cultures, genders, functions, levels, sectors, and countries to solve seemingly intractable group, organizational, and societal problems. Integrative leadership spans four levels:

  1. The Individual: An individual must learn to integrate his/her traits, intelligence, values, and other assets;
  2. The Group: Individuals in a group must learn to integrate across the boundaries of diversity to help the group be more than the sum of its members;
  3. The Organization: Groups within an organization must learn to integrate across the boundaries of function, level, and geography; and
  4. The Society: Organizations must learn to integrate across the boundaries of industries, sectors, and countries.

Integrative leadership is an emerging yet under-developed area in the field of leadership. There is well-developed literature on business leadership. There is literature on public leadership, particularly by politicians or senior officials. The nonprofit governance literature emphasizes leadership of boards and by executive directors. A few scholars focus on the type of leadership that is needed to cross boundaries to attain collective action on common concerns (Chrislip and Larson, 1994; Burns, 2003; Crosby and Bryson, 2005).

Recent Trends in Leadership Studies

The organizers of the new center align their efforts with three recent trends in leadership studies – a focus on leadership more than individual leaders, concern with the moral and spiritual implications of leadership, and systems thinking. The first trend is exemplified by scholars – for example, Joseph Rost (1991) and James Kouzes and Barry Posner (2003)–who focus on the relationship between leaders and followers (or constituents, colleagues, or collaborators). A related move is from the assumption that only an exceptional few have leadership potential to the declaration that everyone might become a leader, depending on preparation and opportunity (Terry, 2001). Exploring the diversity and ubiquity of leadership is a CIL interest.

The second trend appears in numerous recent books (Kellerman, 2004; Lipman-Blumen, 2005; and Maak and Pless, 2006); many scholars now place ethics and human spirituality at the center of leadership (Vaill, 1998; Terry, 2001; Burns, 2003; Rhode, 2006). The third trend, the linking of systems thinking and leadership was instigated by Peter Senge (1990) and has been continued by scholars such as Kathleen Allen and Cynthia Cherry (2000) and Mary Uhl-Bien, Russ Marion, and Bill McElvey (2007), who focus on leadership in complex adaptive systems. A systems view can help integrative leaders see how differentiated sectors and organizations interact to constitute a community. Such a view may also help them acknowledge that the resources (including knowledge) needed to remedy a complex problem are distributed among organizations and sectors.

The center is also allied with the increasing numbers of business management scholars and corporate leaders calling for “social purpose partnership” (Austin, 2006) and “responsible leadership” (Maak and Pless, 2006). These business-oriented voices recognize business leaders’ responsibility to work with all sectors to serve multiple stakeholder groups. The center connects to public management analysts trumpeting the need for government to work with business and nonprofit partners (Goldsmith and Eggers, 2004). Nonprofit scholars like Melissa Stone and Francie Ostrower (2006) examine the roles that nonprofit organizations play in “governance” – that is, the making and implementing of public policy by many types of organizations.

Previous Scholarship at Inter-organizational, Community, National and Global Levels

With his foundational book Leadership,James MacGregor Burns (1978) shed light on the leadership of movements and nations, while delving into the connection between leadership and power, leadership and ethics, and leadership and personal development. Focusing intensely on the use of power by presidents, premiers, social movement leaders, and dictators, he linked a political scientist’s interest in heads of state, a historian’s interest in biography, a sociologist’s interest in social movements, and a psychologist’s view of adult moral development. His naming and explication of transactional vs. transformational leadership has been very influential in leadership studies ever since. The transactional vs. transformational rubric resonated somewhat with the leadership typology developed by Ralph Stogdill (1963) and with earlier work on charisma. Bass and Avolio (1998) worked out a more operational version of Burns’ approach and applied it to organizational leadership. They identified four aspects of transformational leadership (idealized influence, individualized consideration, inspirational motivation, and intellectual stimulation), two aspects of transactional leadership (management by exception and contingent reward) and something they called laissez-faire leadership.

Additional important scholarship at this level includes the work of Barbara Kellerman, who has extended Burns’ work on top political leaders, and more recently described the mutual learning that can and should occur between leaders in the business and government sectors (Kellerman, 1991, 1999). Harry Boyte and others have highlighted leadership in connection with community organizing and civic capacity. These scholars emphasize skills of public debate, problem-solving, effective mobilization and campaigning. For Boyte, leadership is an attribute of community residents who become active citizens (Boyte, 2004). Other examples are catalytic leadership (Luke, 1998), collaborative leadership (Chrislip, 1994; Bryson & Crosby, 1992; Crosby & Bryson, 2005), and leadership within collaboratives (Huxham & Vangen, 2005).

Harlan Cleveland and others focus on the leadership work of building global institutions (Cleveland, 1993, 2002). Some scholars focus on leading multinational corporations (Shipka, 1997). Barbara Crosby and John Bryson have investigated leadership of transnational citizen organizations and movements (Crosby & Bryson, 2005; Crosby, 1999). In his latest book, James MacGregor Burns explores the possibilities for people around the world to demand and develop leadership for dealing with complex, common problems (Burns, 2003). The extensive GLOBE study (House et. al, 2004) highlights the similarities and differences in leadership preferences and practices among national cultures.

Some of the research at the community to global levels focuses on cross-sector partnerships, networks, and collaboration, but the authors pay little attention per se to how leaders bridge the sectors. Most of the research on cross-sector collaboration focuses on structures, process, practices, and only a bit on people and leadership (Huxham & Vangen, 2005; Provan & Milward, 1995). This research emphasis is a priority for the Humphrey Institute’s Public and Nonprofit Leadership Center (Stone, 2004; Crosby & Bryson, 2005).

A few scholars have suggested a focus on “integrity” or “integral theory” as a way to link individual development to the complex interactions and evolution of local to global systems. George Brenkert (2006) pointed to the dual meaning of integrity as a “systemic sense of the wholeness or unity of some set of separate parts” (p. 97), and the integration of an individual’s values and behaviors. Russ Volckmann (2005) has developed an integral approach for helping individuals and groups grasp the wholeness of the world.

2006-7 Seminar Observations

During the 2006-7 academic year, the Center for Integrative Leadership held one public conversation and nine seminars with regional and national speakers to learn more about how integrative leadership is practiced and examine some of the complex public problems that demand integrative approaches. Five of the events focused on personal integrative capacity and on aspects of the organizational and societal context that prompt, facilitate, and constrain integrative leadership. The first three focused on integrative initiatives involving nonprofit, business and government organizations. The featured participants in the three were:

  • Members of the Itasca Project, a group of civic leaders focusing on the economic competitiveness of the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, and representatives of Project for Pride in Living (PPL), a nonprofit organization aimed at increasing the self-sufficiency of low-income people
  • Hennepin County officials and a developer involved in a major community regeneration project in Minneapolis (part of Hennepin County)
  • Two theater directors, a University of Minnesota dean, and a scholar who studies arts as an economic development force.

The fourth seminar in this group featured Bill George, former Medtronic CEO, speaking on authentic leadership, especially by business people. Also in this group was a public conversation featuring Bill George and David Gergen, director of the Center for Public Leadership at the Kennedy School of Government.

Four additional seminars focused on problems such as economic pressures caused by youth bulges and the spike in the elderly population; failed states; the U.S. debt crisis; and climate change. The fifth focused on scenario development as an integrative leadership tool for coping with complex problems.

The seminars offered insights about leadership at the individual, organizational, and societal levels. An overall conclusion is that integrative leadership is happening, but barriers are many, and explicit attention to the development of integrative capacities is lacking.

Individual level: Logically, cognitive, emotional, and behavioral complexity would be important attributes of integrative leaders (Crosby and Bryson, 2005). Cognitive complexity would include big picture thinking, a systems view, understanding of context, ability to consider competing views, develop integrative solutions. (See Hooijberg, Hunt, and Dodge,1997; Mumford et al. 2000; Osborn, Hunt, and Jauch, 2002). Emotional complexity includes the ability to understand specific other’s perspectives, to identify the emotional states of oneself and others, understand relational dynamics, and practice self-discipline (Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee, 2002). It includes the ability to tap one’s own heartfelt passions and those of others, an ability that many leadership scholars identify as crucial for leadership (Kouzes and Posner, 1995; Bolman and Deal, 2003). It might include the recognition of the human need for boundaries and transcendence of boundaries (Ackerman, 1994). Behavioral complexity is the capacity to apply cognitive and emotional intelligence appropriately to different situations (Hooijberg, Hunt, and Dodge,1997; Hooijberg and Schneider, 2001).

Several speakers in the CIL series clearly were guided in their practice of integrative leadership by a broad, expansive, long-term view or vision of what their organizations or communities should and could be. Hennepin County officials said they had come to see the county government’s mission as more about building strong communities and less about providing services. In the seminar focusing on the arts and community generation, Guthrie Theatre Director Joe Dowling talked about the creation of the Abby Theatre in Ireland as an “example of living arts in community,” a force for integrating parts of the Irish society. Project for Pride in Living representatives emphasized the importance of thinking about the local community as a system, rather than focusing on symptoms and partial solutions. This broad perspective, along with a problem-solving mentality and faith that social structures and institutions can be changed for the better, helped these seminar participants realize that investment in inter-organizational collaboration was needed and worthwhile. Often, they simply realized that they could not accomplish their vision without reaching out to other organizations, across government, business and nonprofit sectors.

Several seminar participants revealed a willingness to learn. To bring people together to try to solve seemingly intractable problems requires a curiosity about the dynamics of a problem and openness to unexpected solutions. As Mark Gerzon (2006) has noted, fostering inquiry into multiple points of view can help stakeholders find new positions that all may find acceptable.

For example, a group of executives from the Itasca Project realized they knew little about the legislators who handled policy issues like transportation that were on the project’s agenda. Accordingly, they set up dinner conversations with key legislators and gained new insights about the pressures on legislators to handle numerous issues and satisfy multiple constituencies. As a result, they were better prepared to help lead the community to transportation solutions.

The seminars on peripheral vision scenario planning and population also highlighted the need for integrative leaders to be inquisitive about problem dynamics. People often assume that the future will be similar to the past. The discussion led by Phillip Longman on future population trends led to the realization that national economies, worldwide social problems, and even the nature of terrorism may be quite different from previous experience. Peripheral vision planning, Paul Shoemaker suggested, can be a useful tool for envisioning alternate ways that problems may develop and be remedied.

Some panelists cited their formal education in business management and public affairs as contributors to their exercise of integrative leadership; they also highlighted the informal education they received from cross-boundary experiences. Business executives from the Itasca Project said that volunteering in nonprofit organizations early in their careers had helped them understand the challenges faced by these organizations but also had given them a sense of efficacy and engagement in significant work at a time when they were very junior managers.

Seminar participants highlighted the importance of patience, persistence, and flexibility. Progress takes time and it may come in unanticipated ways. Sometimes one has to wait for the context or the information base to be right to proceed. Accomplishing cross border work in complex systems is not easy and it will not happen quickly. Issuing commands and sticking to inflexible plans will not work. One of the seminar participants spoke of the process as “nudging” a host of participants. Others advised: “You’ve got to keep pedaling” and “You’ve got to nurture, nurture, nurture.”

Seminars also provided some insights about the source of leaders’ willingness to work with people in other organizations and sectors to improve their communities. Sources mentioned were passion about a mission, the desire to make things better, and chutzpah (or what Bandura [1997] would call self-efficacy) coupled with a dose of humility. Also important was finding companions who shared their passion and were willing to cross boundaries together. Some panelists mentioned the influence of being raised in a family that discussed public issues. Dowling cited his grounding in theater, which he sees as an inherently cross-boundary endeavor.

George suggested that integrative leadership emanates from the personal values of caring both for oneself and for others and having courage to put those values into action. He noted that Enron executives ironically did the business world a favor by highlighting the destruction that occurs when people in positions of authority ignore the value of caring for all their constituents.

George cited the conclusion of Bennis and Thomas (2002) that a “crucible experience” may be needed to help young people move from a self-regarding to other-regarding stance. Such an experience may help them more readily identify with the vulnerabilities of others or realize that their fate or efficacy depends on others.

Gergen suggested that students need breadth of experience and reading, as well as deep reflection, to develop integrative qualities. He advocated overseas travel and national service. He also argued that a “certain amount of intelligence” is important for a leader, but that “character is vital.” He argued that the person who is compassionate and consistently lives up to his or her values will demonstrate the “deep integrity” – i.e., character – that prompts others to trust and follow him or her.

In the seminar on state failure, Robert Rotberg argued that progress on nation building requires some positional leaders of one country to play a follower or supporter role. Leadership isn’t always about being at “the head of the parade,” but may require people to lead from the rear or the middle. Harlan Cleveland (2002) made a similar point – leaders must be willing to be followers as appropriate.

Organizational level. Organizational restructuring may be needed as part of integrative leadership. In the case of Itasca Project, business leaders came together in a new business sector organization to tackle complex public problems. Hennepin County administrators launched a campaign to break down departmental silos that were hampering efficiency and effectiveness. Indeed, Jim Campbell, the chair of the Itasca Project, defined integrative leadership as “silo-busting and bridge-building.”

An endorsement of inter-organizational collaboration by the organization’s top positional leaders is not enough to make the collaboration work. People at other levels of the organization must themselves be convinced that required new ways of operating are desirable and given authority to innovate. As Steve Rosenstone (dean of liberal arts at the University of Minnesota) and Sandra Vargas (Hennepin County administrator) emphasized, integrative leaders must overcome the attitude of “we don’t do things that way here,” or “we’ll be here long after the people peddling the new ideas are gone.”

Individual incentives may need to be realigned in order to accomplish an organization’s collaborative goals. As George emphasized, Enron’s CEO might tout the company as committed to community well-being all he wanted, but the company’s individual incentives rewarded exactly the opposite, thus undermining prospects for attending to any goal except short-term profits. Jack Reuler, director of Mixed Blood Theatre, said that Mixed Blood members consciously try to align individual, organizational, and societal needs. When his theater company is deciding on its projects and productions, “we ask is it good for us as individuals, for the organization, for the community, and for the field [of theater].” He encourages all theater members to sit on committees and task forces outside the theater.

As a complement to breaking down institutionalized practices that hamper collaboration, integrative leaders also need to find means—such as formal inter-organizational agreements—to institutionalize collaboration. For example, Dowling from the Guthrie Theatre and Rosenstone from the University of Minnesota crafted the agreement for a joint Bachelor of Fine Arts degree program that now has a life of its own, independent of the two initiators.

Power differences among organizations can certainly be a barrier to the integrative organizational leader seeking to bring diverse organizations together around a common purpose. At the same time, power differences can be a resource. For example, a small and arguably less-powerful organization may be able to relate to constituencies that a larger organization would intimidate. “Power is in the whole” around a common purpose insisted a Project for Pride in Living representative.

Big organizations may be able to partner effectively with intermediate-sized organizations, which in turn may be better prepared to partner with small organizations. This proposition is based on the example of the Guthrie Theatre, which has often partnered with established small theaters like Mixed Blood and Penumbra, which themselves have lent a hand to smaller theater groups. Reuler from the Mixed Blood Theatre commented that diversity—the “fantastic mosaic” of local theater groups (size and focus)—contributes to a healthy theatrical community in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area.

When leaders seek to foster inter-organizational collaboration, discussion, discussion, and more discussion often are needed. Several seminar participants highlighted the importance of direct, consistent communication to help individuals and organizations cross the boundaries between them. PPL includes board members from all the sectors in order to improve cross-sector communication. Rotberg discussed the need for more airing of differences in nation building.

This type of communication is what Mark Gerzon (2006) calls dialogue, or communicating “in order to catalyze the human capacity for bridging and innovation” (p. 7). Effective communication can take a long time to innovatively find the bridge positions that all members of a group can agree with.

Failures may make organizations receptive to innovative, sometimes risky, collaborative approaches. The cycle of urban poverty is a problem that has frustrated public officials in Hennepin County, as elsewhere. Recently, these officials concluded that previous efforts to apply one-size-fits-all rules to poor people have failed to make a dent in much intergenerational poverty. That conclusion has led them to develop experimental projects, such as a partnership with the Little Earth tribal housing development in Minneapolis.

Societal level: Sectoral and intra-sectoral differentiation can be a barrier to collaboration. As one of the speakers pointed out, U.S. society does differentiation well. Different sectors and subsectors have different purposes and logics. For example, the Guthrie Theatre and University of Minnesota are both nonprofit organizations, but operate quite differently. To take a government example, some of Hennepin County’s efforts to be integrative are hampered by federal government restrictions. Meanwhile some subsectors, such as the arts, can exist in business, nonprofit, government, and informal sectors.

Some seminar participants noted the need to use different language to appeal to different sectors. One added that sectors may be at different levels of awareness about a particular public issue .

The tendency to “assign” a type of organization to a particular sector may also be problematic. Ann Markusen argued that the prevailing assumption that the arts belong to the nonprofit sector may result in less attention to for-profit arts organizations and informal community arts groups. She argued, in effect, for seeing the arts as a sector and urged arts organizations to go beyond “individual collaborations and achieve something larger.”

Cross boundary leadership involving all sectors of society, and possibly several societies, is easier when a demanding problem or opportunity is commonly identified and at least a few visionaries understand that solutions will require new institutions and networks. For example, speakers in the seminar on climate change emphasized that until recently the lack of consensus about the existence and effects of global warming hampered efforts to develop national and global institutions for controlling emission of the gases that contribute to global warming. René Castro, a former government minister in Costa Rica, spoke of the efforts to establish the National Biodiversity Institute, which helps Costa Ricans partner with pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies to protect their rain forest while gaining income from new products. He also described successful efforts to create market instruments that would properly price emission reductions.

Zoe Riddell described the Carbon Disclosure Project, a new investor collaborative that is gathering information about companies’ preparation for dealing with the advent of a “carbon-constrained society.” They use the clout of participating major investment houses to prompt companies to report how they are preparing for new regulations, responding to “green” markets, and making appropriate technological innovations.

Understanding trends and possible scenarios is important. Longman emphasized the need to think about how trends interact – for example, the interaction of population trends with predicted effects of global warming and techno-media-entertainment developments. Leaders may need to differentiate smaller trends within the big ones—for example, while the U.S. population as a whole is aging, birth rates are high among recent immigrant communities and some highly religious groups.

Long-term horizons need to be used. Individuals may resist change in the short-term when the impact of a problem will be more evident in the long-term. Both the U.S. trade deficit and the climate change seminars illustrated this observation. Catherine Mann argued that the trade deficit does not appear to be causing problems in the short-term economy. However, if the U.S. government is a debtor nation in the long-term, the country’s influence is likely to diminish. Similarly, predictions of climate change have long been ignored; it is only after visible changes, such as unusual melting of Artic ice, have occurred that large numbers of citizens see climate change as an urgent problem.

Gerzon (2006) calls for “integral vision,” which “addresses long-term needs, not just short-term problems” (p. 75). To make progress on long-term issues, an integrative leader should broaden the horizon to include consequences of current actions. Integrating the present with the future would help others to understand more of the complexity of a problem. The vision should include framing the need, opportunity, and promising solutions in comprehensive ways that can appeal to diverse stakeholders. Rotberg and Shoemaker made similar points in their presentations.

The arts may be a facilitating force for integration. Joe Dowling argued that the arts have an inherent tendency to transcend cultural, historic, and geographic boundaries. He cited the example of the theater he worked with in Ireland as a force for giving diverse groups a common identity. Of course, the arts can hamper integration if they foster a community identity that effectively excludes connection with some groups.

As with inter-organizational collaborations, multiple nation collaborations have to be aligned with at least some of the interests of the participating countries. The United Nations would be an example of the general alignment of many nations for the good of the world. Rotberg noted the need for many nations to be aligned and supportive to improve the condition of developing nations. Mann suggested that the U.S. must lead the efforts to reduce the federal trade deficit, but other nations like China that link the value of its currency to the U.S. would have to accept change as well.


Much has been written on leadership. A quick search using “Google” resulted in 167 million hits. has over 200,000 books on leadership available. The Center for Integrative Leadership is focusing on an important type of leadership: integrative cross-boundary leadership. It is attempting to build a new field of research that brings individual, team, organizational, and societal leadership to bear on complex societal problems. We welcome others interested in this emerging field.

The Center for Integrative Leadership is on a journey of discovery, dissemination, and development. Our first seminar series of the Center for Integrative Leadership was very helpful in understanding the complexity of the questions in need of answers. The seminar series also confirmed the importance of finding answers. The 21st century has daunting challenges. Leadership capable of integration across multiple types of divisions will help move societies forward. Our greatest hope is that many travel companions will join the CIL in discovering more about this type of leadership and fostering its development.


  • Ackerman, D. (1994). A Natural History of Love. New York: Vintage.
  • Allen, K. E. & Cherrey, C. (2000). Systematic leadership: Enriching the meaning of our work. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
  • Austin, J. E. (2006). Leadership through social purpose partnering. In T. Maak, & N. M. Pless (Eds.), Responsible leadership (pp. 202). London: Routledge.
  • Avolio, B. J., & Luthans, F. (2006). The high impact leader: Moments matter in accelerating authentic leadership development. New York: McGraw Hill.
  • Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, C A: Sage.
  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Redwood, C A: Mindgarden.
  • Bennis, W. G.& Thomas,R. J. (2002). Geeks and geezers: How eras, values, and defining moments shape leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
  • Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Boyte, H. C. (2004). Everyday politics: The power of public work. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  • Brenkert, G. G. (2006). Integrity, responsibile leaders and accountability. In T. Maak, & N. M. Pless (Eds.), Responsible leadership.London : Routledge.
  • Bryson, J. M., & Crosby, B. C. (1992). Leadership for the common good: Tackling public problems in a shared power world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming leadership: The pursuit of happiness. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.
  • Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper Collins.
  • Chrislip, D. D., & Larson, C. E. (1994). Collaborative leadership: How citizens and civic leadership can make a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Cleveland, H. (1993). Birth of a new world: An open moment for international leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Cleveland, H. (2002). Nobody in charge: Essays on the future of leadership. New York: John Wiley.
  • Crosby, B. C. (1999). Leadership for global citizenship: Building transnational community. Thousand Oaks, C A: Sage.
  • Crosby, B. C., & Bryson, J. M. (2005). Leadership for the common good: Tackling public problems in a shared-power world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Gerzon, M. (2006). Leading through conflict: How successfulleaders transform differences into opportunities.Boston, M A: Harvard Business School Press.
  • Goldsmith, S., & Eggers, W. D. (2004). Governing by network: The new shape of the public sector (1st ed.). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
  • Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, R. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
  • Hooijberg, R., Hunt, J. G., & Dodge, G. E. (1997). Leadership complexity and development of the leaderplex model. Journal of Management, 23(3), 37-408.
  • Hooijberg, R., & Schneider, M. (2001). Behavioral complexity and social intelligence: How executive leaders use stakeholders to form a systems perspective. In S. J. Zaccaro, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), The nature of organizational leadership: Understanding the performance imperatives confronting today’s leaders . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • House, R. J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership and organizations: GLOBE study of 62 societies.Thousand Oaks, C A: Sage.
  • Huxham, C. Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. New York: Routledge.
  • Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it matters. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
  • Kellerman, B. (1999). Reinventing leadership: Making the connection between politics and business. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  • Kellerman, B. (1991). Leadership: Multidisciplinary perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). Credibility (2d ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians – and how we can survive them. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Luke, J. S. (1998). Catalytic leadership: Strategies for an interconnected world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Maak, T., & Pless, N. M. (2006). Responsible leadership: A relational approach. In T. Maak, & N. M. Pless (Eds.), Responsible leadership. London: Routledge. Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leadership in complex organizations. Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 389-418.
  • Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., & Fleishman, E. A. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems. Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 11-35.
  • Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (2001). Do networks really work: A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks.Public Administration Review, 61(4), 414-423.
  • Osborn, R. N., Hunt, J. G., & Jauch, L. R. (2002). Toward a contextual theory of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 797-837.Rhode, D. (Ed.). (2006). Moral leadership: The theory and practice of power, judgment, and policy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: Praeger.
  • Senge, P. M. (1994). The fifth discipline: The art of practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
  • Shipka, B. (1997). Leadership in a Challenging World. Boston: Butterworth Heinemann.
  • Stogdill, R. (1963). Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire – form XII. Columbus: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.
  • Stone, M. M. (2004). Partnerships and policy implementation: The case of the community employment partnership. Unpublished manuscript.
  • Stone, M., & Ostrower, F. (2006). Governance: Research trends, gaps, future prospects. In W. W. Powell, & R. Steinberg (Eds.),Nonprofit sector: Research handbook (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Terry, R. W. (2001). Seven zones for leadership: Acting authentically in stability and chaos. Palo Alto, C A: Davies-Black.
  • Uhl-Bien, M. Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. Leadership Quarterly18(4), 298-318.
  • Vaill, P. B. (1998). Spirited leading and learning: Process wisdom for a new age. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Volckmann, R. (2005). Accessing executive leadership: An integral approach. Journal of Organizational Change Mangement, 18(3), 289. 

^––––––– ^

Appendix – Center for Integrative Leadership Seminars 2006-7

10/12/06 Starting Places for Integrative Leadership: People and Context –Steve Cramer, (President), Julie Brekke, Kim Matheson, and Neeraj Mehta, Project for Pride in Living and Jim Campbell (Chair), Jay Cowles, and Charles Zelle, Itasca Project.

11/9/06 Inter-governmental Integration for Poverty Alleviation –Peter McLaughlin, Hennepin County Commissioner; Sandra Vargas, Hennepin County Administrator; Richard Johnson, Hennepin County Deputy Administrator; and Elizabeth Flannery, Developer.

12/7/06 How Integrative Leadership in the Arts Fosters Community Regeneration – Joe Dowling, Artistic Director, Guthrie Theater; Steve Rosenstone, Dean, College of Liberal Arts, U of MN; and Jack Reuler, Artistic Director, Mixed Blood Theatre.

1/22/07 Falling Human Fertility and the Balance of Power – Phillip Longman, Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow at the New American Foundation.

2/5/07 State Failure and Required Leadership – Robert Rotberg, Program on Intrastate Conflict and Conflict Resolution, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

2/12/07 U.S. International Economic Relations and the Dollar: Implications of the Current Account Deficit and capital Account Surplus – Catherine Mann, Institute for International Economics and Brandeis University.

2/19/07 Peripheral Vision Scenario Planning – Paul Shoemaker, Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, Research Director, Mack Center for Technological Innovation.

3/19/07 Climate Change: Opportunities for Investment and Innovation –René Castro, Latin American Center for Competitiveness and Sustainable Development, INCAE Business School, Costa Rico.

3/23/07 Ethically Inspired Leadership: Stories and Lessons – Bill George, Author, Harvard Business School Professor, Former Chairman and CEO of Medtronic.

5/3/07 The 21st Century: An Age of Integrative Leadership? – David Gergen, Director, Center for Public Leadership, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; and Bill George, Author, Harvard Business School Professor, Former Chairman and CEO of Medtronic.

Barbara Crosby, Ph.D., associate professor in the Public and Nonprofit Leadership Center at the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, specializing in leadership, cross-sector collaboration, and public policy; member of the faculty steering committee member, Center for Integrative Leadership.
Jay Kiedrowski, Ed.D., senior fellow in the Public and Nonprofit Leadership Center at the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, specializing in leadership, organizational development, and public finance; academic co-director, Center for Integrative Leadership.