The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Special issue on public integrative leadership: Multiple turns of the kaleidoscope
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The question of what the common good means tends to be defined in ways that are partial or partisan, if defined at all, in the emerging field of public integrative leadership.
“Although this emerging field has identified many relevant leadership practices, the question of what the common good means tends to be defined in ways that are partial or partisan, if defined at all.”
From A search for commonalities in defining the common good: Using folk theories to unlock shared conceptions. (2024) · cites this paper as Crosby & Bryson, 2010
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Bryson, 2006, The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature, Public Administration Review, 66, 44, 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00665.x · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wheeler, M. A., Wilson, S. G., Baes, N., & Demsar, V. (2024) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjso.12713 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Crosby, B. C., & Bryson, J. M.
- Corresponding author
- Crosby, Barbara C.
- Venue
- The Leadership Quarterly
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-04
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 205-208
- ISSN
- 1048-9843 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2045695849
- Cited by
- 39
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2012: 1
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Leadership Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Minnesota
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Research, Science, and Academia
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Leadership and Management in Organizations
- Keywords
- integrative leadership, principal investigators, emotional work, leadership strategies, European Research Council, scientific culture, affective networks, scientific careers
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
