From destination governance to destination leadership – defining and exploring the significance with the help of a systemic perspective

Abstract

Purpose – Starting from the tenet that destination management deserves a systemic approach the authors first explain the meaning of systemic leadership and then discuss its relevance for tourist destinations. The aim of this paper is twofold. First, it develops a concept of destination leadership based on a systemic perspective and therefore prevents a common misunderstanding, namely that destination leadership may simply generate from organizational leadership. Second, the concept builds on extant literature on destination governance and in so doing it stretches the vector of this research stream (governance) into a supplemental field (leadership). Design/methodology/approach – Based on recent empirical research in the field of systemic research in destinations, the concept of destination leadership is elaborated in a wider context of destination management. Findings – As a result, a set of dimensions and mechanisms which drive the systemic development of destinations can be distilled. A framework for further research is proposed and tested with the help of an empirical study with a set of influential actors from four destinations in Switzerland, Austria, and Italy. Originality/value – The results reveal that influence as a proxy for systemic leadership is supported by trust and effective communication. Other leadership dimensions derived from traditional leadership literature such as mutual understanding, accessibility (non-significant) or likeability (negatively affecting influence) prove to be irrelevant to systemic leadership. The implications underline the need to differentiate between leadership in inter-organizational arrangements and leadership in destinations, understood as communities and complex social systems.

Governance of tourism in OECD countries

“…On the other hand, a bottom-up approach would prescribe the need for the involvement of local communities in creating a vision and a plan for the development of the destination that may or may not require the support of public organization (Vernon, Essex, Pinder, & Curry, 2005). From other perspectives, tourism governance has been related to the personal characteristics of the destination stakeholders (Beritelli & Bieger, 2013), or to the quality and strength of relationships amongst them (von Friedrichs Grängsjö, 2003;Scott et al, 2008;Volgger & Pechlaner, 2014). The process by which government coordinates and steers policies and policy activities is also explored and justified under different theoretical perspectives such as the New Institutionalism or the Strategic-Relational Approach (Pastras & Bramwell, 2013).…”

Risk management in the South African local government and its impact on service delivery

“…By encouraging risk leadership in an organisation, systemic leadership can be encouraged: "systemic leadership has its origins in economics and explains the influence of single regions and sectors in wider areas or industries, often due to network effects and interdependencies between the relevant units and clusters" [Beritelli and Bieger, (2013), p.27]. This would require transformational leadership, including the relational aspect of leadership in terms of the quality of collaboration, stewardship, trust, care, ethics and to influence direction and ensuring quality, performance and service delivery focus in organisational change situations [Beritelli and Bieger, (2013), p.27]. According to Beritelli and Bieger (2013, p.27), "systemic leadership occurs throughout the organization; it is grounded in the freedom of organizational members to be creative and to generate processes and practices by which creativity can be translated into organizational learning and into ethical and effective choices."…”

Are Partnerships Enhancing Tourism Destination Competitiveness?

“…Over the last decade there have been a growing number of initiatives among tourism researchers that discuss the need for monitoring destination competitiveness (Kozak and Rimmington, 1999;Dwyer and Kim, 2003;Ritchie and Crouch, 2003;Bahar and Kozak, 2007;Mazanec et al, 2007;Zehrer et al, 2017) and the networking approach in tourism (e.g. Baggio et al, 2010;Beritelli and Bieger, 2014;Hoppe and Reinelt, 2010;Hristov and Zehrer, 2015). The debate on destination competitiveness within tourism research has not yet settled on a widely accepted concept.…”