Global Leadership for Sustainability: Essential Competencies for Leading Transformative Multi-Sector Partnerships

Abstract

Multi-sector partnerships (MSPs), as a collaborative approach to address complex social issues, have been documented in the literature for nearly forty years. Transformational MSPs, which accomplish system-wide change, are integral to accomplishing Sustainable Development Goal 17. While MSP research has uncovered some factors that ensure partnership success, leader competencies for these inter-organizational phenomena are underexplored. The purpose of this paper is to identify the leadership competencies necessary for leading a successful transformative MSP and, in doing so, propose that global leadership for sustainability (GLfS) not only encompasses these competencies but also incorporates and extends current approaches to the leadership of transformative MSPs. For context, we present an overview of the existing multi-sector partnership literature, highlighting how the field has evolved and the critical phases of its development, including a definition of a transformational MSP. This leads us to examine various leadership models that, taken together, specify the necessary and partner development competencies for leading transformative MSPs. We then demonstrate how the GLfS model can be used to facilitate the success of transformative MSPs for achieving system-wide change focused on sustainable development and the triple bottom line. Finally, we conclude by re-examining MSP themes and identifying avenues for future theory, research, and practice.

1. Introduction

Multi-sector partnerships (MSPs) comprise representatives from different businesses, non-profit agencies and/or governments who come together to achieve mutually agreed upon goals. Despite increasing interest in the collaborative form, the literature notes that more MSP initiatives fail than succeed, promoting many research attempts to define the factors that promote success [1,2,3,4]. Calls for more productive partnerships have become more urgent [5] since the United Nations adopted their most recent Sustainable Development Goals in 2015, specifically calling for MSPs, as defined through SDG 17, as the foundation for accomplishing all the SDGs [4]. The model of MSP identified as potentially most impactful is those capable of system-wide transformation [6,7,8]. Despite this increasing emphasis on MSPs and some understanding of the factors that can promote success, the leadership of transformational MSPs is an underexplored phenomenon, especially at the individual and team levels, as the vast majority of writing and research has been at the organizational and inter-organizational levels.

The purpose of this paper is to define the leadership competencies necessary for leading a successful transformative MSP and, in doing so, propose that Fry and Egel’s [9] model of global leadership for sustainability not only encompasses these competencies but also incorporates and extends current approaches to the leadership of transformative MSPs focused on sustainability. First, we present an overview of the existing multi-sector partnership literature, which documents how the field has evolved and the critical phases of its development. This historical analysis sets the stage for recognizing that the leadership component of transformative MSPs is underexplored. Next, we perform a literature review of the leadership models, identifying essential competencies for leading MSPs. We then compare and contrast the conceptual domains of these models and conclude that Fry and Egel’s [9]) Global Leadership for Sustainability model incorporates and adds richness to the necessary and partnership development competencies for leading transformative MSPs. Finally, we discuss the theoretical and practical contribution this extended GLfS model makes in the service of transformational MSPs for sustainability.

This piece contributes to our understanding of leadership for transformational MSPs focused on sustainability in several ways in that it

• further explains the role leadership must play and its importance for leading transformative MSPs;
• reviews and integrates the relevant literature on the leadership of MSPs;
• provides specific models, methods, and tools for implementing the necessary and developmental competencies for leading MSPs;
• explains a causal model of GLfS that incorporates and extends the current widely accepted approaches to the leadership of transformative MSPs.

2. Historical Background on Multi-Sector Partnerships

It is important to our call for additional work on the leadership aspects of MSPs to understand the current state of knowledge about this inter-organizational phenomenon. The literature on multi-sector partnerships (MSPs) is well established. Table 1 presents a historical overview and timeline of key published articles and reports shaping our current understanding of the theoretical and practical domains of MSPs. The criteria for choosing the relevant literature began with an extensive literature search on established databases (ABI/INFORM and Business Source Complete) on MSPs, with an additional criterion of over 300 citations, as identified by Google Scholar. The authors included several practitioner-oriented reports that do not meet this threshold but have had a significant impact on the evolution of MSP knowledge (noted with “E” in Table 1). In addition, several published works since 2018 did not meet the 300-citation threshold but, again, were included based on their significant contribution. Throughout this literature, these types of collaborations are labeled with various terms, among them “public/private”, “cross-sector”, “cross-sector social partnerships”, “muti-stakeholder”, or “multi-sector” partnerships. In this paper, we are choosing to use the term multi-sector partnerships (MSPs), for it means a cooperative arrangement that involves representatives from organizations in at least two but potentially three sectors: government, business, and non-profit (note, in some circles, non-profit organizations are called civil society).

There are themes that define this literature, which are highlighted in the last column of Table 1 as “contributions” and summarized in the following paragraphs. The literature began in the mid-1980s when the first calls were made for organizations to work across sector lines to address complicated social issues [10,11]. Scholarly literature follows throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, attempting to bring theoretical constructs and some organizing frameworks to this inter-organizational phenomenon. This work is grounded in multiple disciplines, among them organization theory, public policy, public administration, corporate social performance, and strategic management [12,13,14,15]. Austin’s work from 2000 is noteworthy, as it documents that the analysis of inter-organizational collaborations up to this point had focused on those within sectors or between public and non-profit organizations. His research, comparing case studies and conducting structured interviews with participants in business/non-profit collaborations, bridges non-profit and business collaboration to move beyond the notions of corporate social responsibility to the strategic advantages of such partnerships. His three-stage model—philanthropic, transactional, and integrative—notes the “value creation” experienced as the organizations from both sectors gain benefits [12].

It was also in the early 2000s that we saw the first literature promoting multi-sector collaboration to promote sustainable development. The works by Bendell [16] and Rondinelli and London [17] documented the adversarial nature of past non-profit and private sector organizational relationships when it came to environmental performance. These researchers drew on successful private/non-profit environmental collaborations to demonstrate how businesses need to rethink their strategic alliances to promote progress in sustainable development.

In 2005, we saw the first theoretical contribution that specifically addressed the role of leadership for MSPs with the work of Crosby and Bryson. Prior work was primarily at the organizational and inter-organizational levels, and while documenting the processes at work, it did not address the role of individuals. This work was further developed by Crosby and Bryson [18] with the definition of a model of “integrative leadership”, citing the roles leaders must play, such as “champion” and process negotiators, for cross-sector collaborations involving government as one entity to be successful.

Throughout the 2010s, there were major leaps forward, both advocating an increase in multi-sector collaborations and claiming their strategic advantages. Porter and Kramer [19], in the most cited literature in Table 1, advocate for new modes of business whereby strategic alliances with non-profit stakeholders allow for economic and social progress, creating “shared value” for all. The authors propose a controversial idea that the typical capitalist notions of business success, often at the expense of stakeholders, are outdated, given our current social challenges, and that by changing the approaches, there will be innovation and growth. Kramer and Pfitzer [20] follow up this work with a systems view of shared value partnerships. Senge, Hamilton, and Kania [21] also promote systems thinking, calling for “systems leaders” to promote and achieve the collaborative relationships across sector lines needed to solve global societal issues, including problems like climate change. Systems leaders are those who can see the holistic nature of interconnected problems and can promote an understanding and vision for moving forward when others view issues narrowly. They engage in reflection themselves and promote others, enabling preconceptions to be uncovered and new viewpoints emerge. Systems leaders can also lead others in co-creating opportunities for proactive collective problem solving and building alternative futures [21].

The theoretical work by Austin and Seitanidi [6,22] provides an enhanced value creation continuum framework, building on Austin’s (2000) work [12], with a new highest level of MSP being a “transformational” collaboration with extensive value creation. The qualities of these partnerships include high levels of engagement, interaction, and trust, along with managerial complexity, frequent innovation, and strategic value creation resulting in system-wide change.

We also see in mid-2010s two important practitioner-oriented works documenting the progress and challenges specifically in managing a sustainability MSP. The Network for Business Sustainability [1] provides the first comprehensive study of 275 published sustainability partnership cases to date, evaluating their context and process features to develop a compilation of the necessary success factors. Gray and Stites [1] cite Austin and Seitanidi’s [6] model of transformational partnerships as the structure with the most impact. The “best practices” approaches their research identified include

• Share power and support voice.
• Find consensus.
• Clarify decision-making authority.
• Agree on norms and management processes.
• Handle conflict.
• Create accountability through evaluation.
• Be patient.
• Explore differences.
• Find a shared vision.
• Frame the partnership as a continuous learning process.
• Build trust.
• Develop leadership (often taking the form of facilitation).

(pp. 12–13)

Other than the work of Crosby and Bryson, this is the first work to more comprehensively define the role that leaders must play in these MSPs.

A similar consultative report developed by MIT, the Boston Consulting Group, and the UN Global Compact [2] documented interviews with corporate executives involved in sustainability collaborations. Interviews with 3800 corporate executives document that 90% of the executives believe environmentally focused collaborations are needed; yet only 47% are engaged in these efforts, and of those, only 61% are successful. On the plus side, the executives report that collaborations are becoming more mainstream and transformational, and they are becoming an integral part of the business. Among the success factors that involve leaders’ work are the ability to speak the same language, early due diligence to make sure the goals are compatible and getting the “right people” in the room who can build trust.

Pattberg and Widerberg’s work builds on the theme that, while there are advocates of multi-sector partnerships for sustainability, the performance record of such partnerships is lacking [3]. Of the 340 partnerships registered with the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, 5 years after their founding, “211 partnerships are inactive, lack any outputs, or fail to match their stated ambition with their observed activities” (p. 44). As stated in the alternative, only 36% achieved some or all of their stated objectives. They identify three categories of success factors for optimizing partnership performance. In the “actor” category are the “optimal partner mix” and “effective leadership”. Their conclusions regarding leadership show the need for further research:

While good leadership is recognized as an important feature of successful partnerships, it remains difficult to operationalize. Most observers simply note that leadership is essential yet provide little information on the conditions for effective leadership and means to foster it. Nevertheless, it remains critical to identify and manage the different types of leadership needed for the partnership to succeed.

(p. 47)

The second category of success factors is process, consisting of clear and precise goal setting, stable funding, good management structure and process capabilities, and regular evaluation mechanisms that promote organizational learning. The third category of success factors is context, including meta-governance (forming a self-organizing system), a keen understanding of the political environment, and matching the organizing structure correctly with the problem.

As shown in the last rows of Table 1, studies on multi-sector partnerships since 2018 do not clearly fit into one succinct theme; yet they are all geared toward proving more explanatory power about the phenomenon to move the field forward. Becker and Smith’s [23] model of a cross-sector leader who can work at the local level and understand the broader system is based on work by the Presidio Institute [24] on urban revitalization. Clarke and Crane [7] note the fragmented nature of the field and propose a new definition of what constitutes systemic change in relation to partnerships:

Systemic change: the result of actions that lead to a significant alteration within a system, potentially leading to substantial impacts. The system can be at any scale. Examples of systemic change include a fundamental change in policy, transformation of the structure in an institutional field, and significant change in system attributes or function.

(p. 308)

Van Hille, Baker, Ferguson, and Groenewegen [25] analyze the critical issue many partnerships face of whether an outside “convenor” or facilitator should be engaged to help partnership formation or whether one or more of the stakeholder representatives can play this role. Analyzing case studies through a new paradox lens, they first conclude that the tensions inherent in partnerships where multiple stakeholders often have conflicting issues are not just a challenge to be overcome in the formation stage but are tensions to be managed throughout the process. Given this, they suggest moving away from studies that define the “qualities” of external convenors or stakeholder leaders/facilitators and look more toward the plethora of tactics these individuals must employ at all partnership stages. They do not advocate for the “neutral” facilitator or the stakeholder leader/facilitator but describe the tensions inherent in each role and suggest future research.

“The SDG Partnership Guidebook” [4] offers practitioners a detailed step-by-step manual for building partnerships, a key element of SDG 17. The guidebook draws on work at the United Nations and the Partnership Initiative, a UN-backed consultancy that has worked for over 20 years with partnerships for sustainability. The guidebook notes that leaders capable of working across sectors are an integral component of further progress on the SDGs, and to that end, they introduce a leader model with four capabilities described. This “MUST” model includes “mindset”, “understanding of other sectors”, “human relations skills”, and “technical partnering knowledge” (p. 66). One of the stated purposes of the guidebook is to promote a greater number of individuals capable of managing and leading future partnerships.

The final study making a significant contribution to this field is the work by Stott and Murphy [8] advocating for a more inclusive “relational” lens for multi-sector partnerships for sustainability. They build a case that previous research focusing on the organizational and inter-organizational levels misses the complex and crucial inter-personal dynamics that are necessary for transformational partnerships—defined as those that can accomplish large-scale change—to flourish.

In sum, we attempted to summarize close to 40 years of research and theory on multi-sector partnerships in this paper. The field has evolved, and we see in some of the newer works innovative insights moving the field forward with a better understanding of how process is a critical feature throughout a partnership’s lifespan, that a systems viewpoint is necessary, along with an understanding of dynamics as low as dyads. Taking an optimistic view, perhaps such knowledge, when applied, can turn the statistics on partnership performances and success rates in a more upward trajectory.

To achieve improved performance levels, however, the question of the leadership skills and capabilities needed to promote the most advanced stages of MSPs or transformational MSPs—similar to what Austin and Seitanidi [6], Clarke and Crane [7], and Murphy and Scott [8] advocate—still needs a better explanation. We agree with these authors that this is the model of MSP we are striving for, especially as it relates to making progress on the Sustainable Development Goals. To further identify and explain the necessary leadership competencies for MSPs, we turn next to exploration of the leadership literature.

Table 1. Timeline of MSP research sources.

Author(s)/Year	# Citations Google Scholar	Contribution
Gray, B. 1985 [10]	1700	The first scholarly attempt to define the impact that collaborations across organizations and sectors could have. Draws on the organization theory, policy analysis, and organization development.
Waddock, S.A. 1988 [11]	494	One of the first scholarly attempts to define how partnerships across sector lines could impact progress on social issues.
Gray, B. and Wood, D. J. 1991 [14]	1298	Introduction to special issues of The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science with case studies of collaborative partnerships. Refines the ideas brought up by Gray [10] and identifies multiple theories, which explain some of the preconditions, processes, and outcomes for collaborations.
Waddock, S.A. 1991 [15]	400	Derives a typology of social partnerships based on the interdependence of organizations and the level of the problem. Identifies problem-solving potential and implications.
Huxham, C. and Vangen, S. 1996 [13]	388	Systematic study of public/non-profit or voluntary organization partnerships aimed at solving social issues. Identifies six themes that arise in these inter-organizational arrangements.
Austin, J. E. 2000 [12]	1457	Studies 15 case studies of business/non-profit partnerships and builds an early continuum of possible organizing structures.
Bendell, J. 2000 [16]	396	Proposes that businesses and NGOs need to move beyond antagonistic relationships and work together for sustainable development. Provides examples where businesses have successfully partnered with stakeholders/non-profits.
Rondinelli, D. A. and London, T. 2003 [17]	748	Another call for corporations and environmental groups to move beyond adversarial relationships and work collaboratively on environmental challenges. Proposes strategic advantages.
Selsky, J. W. and Parker, B. 2005 [26]	1920	Summarizes the current work on cross-sector social partnerships (CSSPs) to move the theory and practice forward.
Crosby, B. C. and Bryson, J. M. 2005 [27]	319	One of the first studies to review the leadership competencies needed for public sector partnerships. Proposes additional research, which is needed to refine the leadership competencies necessary for shared power alliances.
Le Ber, M. J. and Branzei, O. 2010 [28]	324	A grounded theory model tracking the successes and failures in for-profit/non-profit cross-sector partnerships. Proposes how relational components navigate the role of the “reconfigurations” necessary to overcome early failure.
Seitanidi, M.M. and Crane, A. 2009 [29]	654	In-depth comparative case study of two private/non-profit partnerships showing the micro-processes that can lead to institutionalization between the partners.
Crosby, B. C. and Bryson, J. M. 2010 [18]	707	Builds on a work from 2005 to define “integrative leadership” as the leadership needed to implement partnerships between public organizations and others across sectors. Proposes a set of propositions for further research.
Porter, M. E. and Kramer, M. R. 2011 [19]	15,794	A seminal article specifically calling for new modes of business operation, whereby corporations specifically attempt to partner with non-profit organizations to create shared value.
Austin, J. E. and Seitanidi, M. M. 2012 [6]	1022	Defines a continuum of categories along which multi-sector partnerships can be defined based on the extent to which there is shared value creation. The simplest form is philanthropic and the most sophisticated is transformational.
Austin, J. E. and Seitanidi, M. M. 2012 [22]	593	Follow-up to the above article, offering more detail on the components of each type of partnership.
Gray, B. and Stites, J.P. 2013 [1]	273 (E)	First comprehensive review conducted on case studies of environmental partnerships. Defines the factors that contribute to partnership success.
Senge, P., Hamilton, H., and Kania, J. 2015 [21]	593	Advocates for systems leadership for improved partnership formation and implementation.
Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N., Haanaes, K., Reeves, M., et al. 2015 [2]	193 (E)	Extensive interviews with corporate executives on their partnership viewpoints. Documents that the views are changing with recognition of the interdependencies between sectors needed for sustainability progress. Documents that many still fail.
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., and Stone, M. M. 2015 [30]	1185	Summarizes and adds to authors’ previous works. Shows the newly adapted systems’ view of public and multi-sector partnership components. Documents that partnerships are still difficult to accomplish, given the complexity, and the limited progress.
Kramer, M. R. and Pfitzer, M. W. 2016 [20]	396	Advocates for businesses to be more involved in multi-sector partnerships for collective impact. Documents the opportunities for economic value in such partnerships.
Pattberg, P. and Widerberg, O. 2016 [3]	300	Systematic analysis of UN partnerships to date, showing lack of performance. Proposes a new set of success factors.
Becker, J. and Smith, D. B. 2018 [23]	36	Documents the need for a new type of cross-sector leader who can successfully lead multi-sector collaborations at a large scale. Such leaders understand the human-centered approach and the broader system and can capitalize on the differences as assets.
Clarke, A. and Crane, A. 2018 [7]	233	Charts the partnership literature as fragmented while advocating for systematic change. Derives a model of systems change for multi-sector partnerships that can guide future research.
van Hille, I., de Bakker, F. G., Ferguson, J. E., and Groenewegen, P. 2019 [25]	29	Explores the role of a convenor in navigating the tensions in partnerships. Notes that these tensions are evident throughout the entire process and analyzes the convenor as a facilitator versus the convenor as a leader/stakeholder.
Stibbe, D. and Prescott, D. 2020 [4]	67	Practitioner guide produced by UN partners. Documents the steps and “building blocks” for partnership formation and implementation. Identifies a leadership model for partnership convenors.
Stott, I. and Murphy, D. F. 2020 [8]	49	Advocates that previous attempts to categorize partnerships do not explain the intense inter-personal dynamics. These partnerships are critical for the achievement of the SDGs and can more successfully achieve systematic change by viewing them through a relational lens.

Table 1. Timeline of MSP research sources.

Author(s)/Year	# Citations Google Scholar	Contribution
Gray, B. 1985 [10]	1700	The first scholarly attempt to define the impact that collaborations across organizations and sectors could have. Draws on the organization theory, policy analysis, and organization development.
Waddock, S.A. 1988 [11]	494	One of the first scholarly attempts to define how partnerships across sector lines could impact progress on social issues.
Gray, B. and Wood, D. J. 1991 [14]	1298	Introduction to special issues of The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science with case studies of collaborative partnerships. Refines the ideas brought up by Gray [10] and identifies multiple theories, which explain some of the preconditions, processes, and outcomes for collaborations.
Waddock, S.A. 1991 [15]	400	Derives a typology of social partnerships based on the interdependence of organizations and the level of the problem. Identifies problem-solving potential and implications.
Huxham, C. and Vangen, S. 1996 [13]	388	Systematic study of public/non-profit or voluntary organization partnerships aimed at solving social issues. Identifies six themes that arise in these inter-organizational arrangements.
Austin, J. E. 2000 [12]	1457	Studies 15 case studies of business/non-profit partnerships and builds an early continuum of possible organizing structures.
Bendell, J. 2000 [16]	396	Proposes that businesses and NGOs need to move beyond antagonistic relationships and work together for sustainable development. Provides examples where businesses have successfully partnered with stakeholders/non-profits.
Rondinelli, D. A. and London, T. 2003 [17]	748	Another call for corporations and environmental groups to move beyond adversarial relationships and work collaboratively on environmental challenges. Proposes strategic advantages.
Selsky, J. W. and Parker, B. 2005 [26]	1920	Summarizes the current work on cross-sector social partnerships (CSSPs) to move the theory and practice forward.
Crosby, B. C. and Bryson, J. M. 2005 [27]	319	One of the first studies to review the leadership competencies needed for public sector partnerships. Proposes additional research, which is needed to refine the leadership competencies necessary for shared power alliances.
Le Ber, M. J. and Branzei, O. 2010 [28]	324	A grounded theory model tracking the successes and failures in for-profit/non-profit cross-sector partnerships. Proposes how relational components navigate the role of the “reconfigurations” necessary to overcome early failure.
Seitanidi, M.M. and Crane, A. 2009 [29]	654	In-depth comparative case study of two private/non-profit partnerships showing the micro-processes that can lead to institutionalization between the partners.
Crosby, B. C. and Bryson, J. M. 2010 [18]	707	Builds on a work from 2005 to define “integrative leadership” as the leadership needed to implement partnerships between public organizations and others across sectors. Proposes a set of propositions for further research.
Porter, M. E. and Kramer, M. R. 2011 [19]	15,794	A seminal article specifically calling for new modes of business operation, whereby corporations specifically attempt to partner with non-profit organizations to create shared value.
Austin, J. E. and Seitanidi, M. M. 2012 [6]	1022	Defines a continuum of categories along which multi-sector partnerships can be defined based on the extent to which there is shared value creation. The simplest form is philanthropic and the most sophisticated is transformational.
Austin, J. E. and Seitanidi, M. M. 2012 [22]	593	Follow-up to the above article, offering more detail on the components of each type of partnership.
Gray, B. and Stites, J.P. 2013 [1]	273 (E)	First comprehensive review conducted on case studies of environmental partnerships. Defines the factors that contribute to partnership success.
Senge, P., Hamilton, H., and Kania, J. 2015 [21]	593	Advocates for systems leadership for improved partnership formation and implementation.
Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N., Haanaes, K., Reeves, M., et al. 2015 [2]	193 (E)	Extensive interviews with corporate executives on their partnership viewpoints. Documents that the views are changing with recognition of the interdependencies between sectors needed for sustainability progress. Documents that many still fail.
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., and Stone, M. M. 2015 [30]	1185	Summarizes and adds to authors’ previous works. Shows the newly adapted systems’ view of public and multi-sector partnership components. Documents that partnerships are still difficult to accomplish, given the complexity, and the limited progress.
Kramer, M. R. and Pfitzer, M. W. 2016 [20]	396	Advocates for businesses to be more involved in multi-sector partnerships for collective impact. Documents the opportunities for economic value in such partnerships.
Pattberg, P. and Widerberg, O. 2016 [3]	300	Systematic analysis of UN partnerships to date, showing lack of performance. Proposes a new set of success factors.
Becker, J. and Smith, D. B. 2018 [23]	36	Documents the need for a new type of cross-sector leader who can successfully lead multi-sector collaborations at a large scale. Such leaders understand the human-centered approach and the broader system and can capitalize on the differences as assets.
Clarke, A. and Crane, A. 2018 [7]	233	Charts the partnership literature as fragmented while advocating for systematic change. Derives a model of systems change for multi-sector partnerships that can guide future research.
van Hille, I., de Bakker, F. G., Ferguson, J. E., and Groenewegen, P. 2019 [25]	29	Explores the role of a convenor in navigating the tensions in partnerships. Notes that these tensions are evident throughout the entire process and analyzes the convenor as a facilitator versus the convenor as a leader/stakeholder.
Stibbe, D. and Prescott, D. 2020 [4]	67	Practitioner guide produced by UN partners. Documents the steps and “building blocks” for partnership formation and implementation. Identifies a leadership model for partnership convenors.
Stott, I. and Murphy, D. F. 2020 [8]	49	Advocates that previous attempts to categorize partnerships do not explain the intense inter-personal dynamics. These partnerships are critical for the achievement of the SDGs and can more successfully achieve systematic change by viewing them through a relational lens.

3. Leadership of Multi-Sector Partnerships Focused on Sustainability

The leadership of MSPs is a relatively new field of scholarly inquiry that goes beyond the more traditional leadership for sustainability approaches in that it expands the leadership for sustainability literature reviewed by Fry and Egel [9], which, although speaking to the need for a stakeholder approach as necessary for sustainability and sustainable development, fails to explore the nature of the relationships among stakeholder ecosystems and reach consensus on the leadership competencies essential for effective performance of MSPs [31].

Reflecting the nascent state of the field, research to date on the leadership of MSPs has no clear focus, as it is limited to 15 studies that have been published in peer-reviewed journals or widely accepted as definitive. These studies are listed in

Table 2. Essential competencies for leading transformative multi-sector partnerships for sustainability.

Competencies	Leadership Theories Focused on Leading Transformative Multi-Sector Partnerships for Sustainability
Necessary Competencies	Collaborative Leadership	Systems Leadership	Integrative Leadership	Responsible Leadership	General MSP Articles with Leadership Sections	Global Leadership for Sustainability
Mindfulness/Reflection	(Ansell and Gash, 2012 [32]) (Getha-Taylor and Morse, 2013 [33])	(Evens et al., 2021 [34]) (Senge et al., 2015 [21])	(Perlman et al., 2014 [35])		(Tan et al., 2017 [24]) (Becker and Smith, 2018 [23]) (The SDG Partnership Guidebook, 2020 [4])	Fry and Egel (2021) [9]
Vision, Shared Purpose, and Goals	(Ansell and Gash, 2012 [32]) (Bryson et al., 2015 [30]) (Getha-Taylor and Morse, 2013 [33]) (Hsieh and Liou, 2018 [36]) (Vangen et al., 2015 [37])	(Bolden et al., 2020 [38]) (Dreier et al., 2019 [5]) (Senge et al., 2015 [21])	(Alban-Metcalfe and Alimo-Metcalfe, 2010 [39]) (Crosby and Bryson, 2010 [18]) (Morse, 2010 [40]) (Page, 2010 [41]) (Perlman et al., 2014 [35])	(Austin et al., 2022 [31])	(Gray and Stites, 2013 [1]) (Kiron et al., 2015 [2]) (Pattberg and Widerberg, 2016 [3]) (Tan et al., 2017 [24]) (The SDG Partnership Guidebook, 2020 [4])	Fry and Egel (2021) [9]
Building and Nurturing System-Focused Stakeholder Relationships and Networks	(Ansell and Gash, 2012 [32]) (Bryson et al., 2015 [30]) (Getha-Taylor and Morse, 2013 [33]) (Hsieh and Liou, 2018 [36]) (Vangen et al., 2015 [37])	(Bolden et al., 2020 [38]) (Evens et al., 2021 [34]) (Dreier et al., 2019 [5]) (Senge et al., 2015 [21])	(Alban-Metcalfe and Alimo-Metcalfe, 2010 [39]) (Crosby and Bryson, 2010 [18]) (Morse, 2010 [40]) (Page, 2010 [41]) (Perlman et al., 2014 [35])	(Austin et al., 2022 [31])	(Gray and Stites, 2013 [1]) (Kiron et al., 2015 [2]) (Pattberg and Widerberg, 2016 [3]) (Tan et al., 2017 [24]) (The SDG Partnership Guidebook, 2020 [4])	Fry and Egel (2021) [9]
Culture Grounded in Trust and Ethical Behavior	(Ansell and Gash, 2012 [32]) (Bryson et al., 2015 [30]) (Getha-Taylor and Morse, 2013 [33]) (Vangen et al., 2015 [37])	(Bolden et al., 2020 [38]) (Dreier et al., 2019 [5]) (Senge et al., 2015 [21])	(Crosby and Bryson, 2010 [18]) (Perlman et al., 2014 [35])	(Austin et al., 2022 [31])	(Gray and Stites, 2013 [1]) (Kiron et al., 2015 [2]) (Pattberg and Widerberg, 2016 [3]) (Tan et al., 2017 [24]) (The SDG Partnership Guidebook, 2020 [4])	Fry and Egel (2021) [9]
Partnership Development Competencies
Building and Empowering Partnership Relationships/Teambuilding	(Bryson et al., 2015 [30]) (Getha-Taylor and Morse, 2013 [33])	(Bolden et al., 2020 [38]) (Dreier et al., 2019 [5]) (Senge et al., 2015 [21])	(Crosby and Bryson, 2010 [18]) (Perlman et al., 2014 [35]) (Morse, 2010 [40])	(Austin et al., 2022 [31])	(Gray and Stites, 2013 [1]) (Tan et al., (2017 [24]) (The SDG Partnership Guidebook, 2020 [4])	Fry and Egel (2021) [9]
Managing Change Process	(Ansell and Gash, 2012 [32])	(Bolden et al., 2020 [38]) (Dreier et al., 2019 [5]) (Senge et al., 2015 [21])	(Crosby and Bryson, 2010 [18]) (Perlman et al., 2014 [35])		(Gray and Stites, 2013 [1]) (Tan et al., 2017 [24]) (The SDG Partnership Guidebook, 2020 [4])	Fry and Egel (2021) [9]
Collaborative Decision Making	(Ansell and Gash, 2012 [32]) (Bryson et al., 2015 [30]) (Getha-Taylor and Morse, 2013 [33]) (Hsieh and Liou, 2018 [36]) (Vangen et al., 2015 [37])	(Evens et al., 2021 [34]) (Bolden et al., 2020 [38]) (Dreier et al., 2019 [5]) (Senge et al., 2015 [21])	(Crosby and Bryson, 2010 [18]) (Perlman et al., 2014 [35]) (Morse, 2010 [40])		(Gray and Stites, 2013 [1]) (Kiron et al., 2015 [2]) (Tan et al., 2017 [24]) (The SDG Partnership Guidebook, 2020 [4])	Fry and Egel (2021) [9]
Managing Conflict	(Bryson et al., 2015 [30]) (Ansell and Gash, 2012 [32]) (Getha-Taylor and Morse, 2013 [33]) (Vangen et al., 2015 [37])	(Bolden et al., 2020 [38])	(Crosby and Bryson, 2010 [18]) (Perlman et al., 2014 [35]) (Page, 2010 [41])		(Gray and Stites, 2013 [1]) (Tan et al., 2017 [24]) (The SDG Partnership Guidebook, 2020 [4])	Fry and Egel (2021) [9]
Entrepreneurial Approach/Innovation	(Ansell and Gash, 2012 [32]) (Getha-Taylor and Morse, 2013 [33])	(Dreier et al., 2019 [5])	(Morse, 2010 [40])	(Austin et al., 2022 [31])	(Gray and Stites, 2013 [1]) (Tan et al., 2017 [24]) (The SDG Partnership Guidebook, 2020 [4])	Fry and Egel (2021) [9]
Negotiation/Influencing	(Ansell and Gash, 2012 [32]) (Bryson et al., 2015 [30]) (Getha-Taylor and Morse, 2013 [33]) (Hsieh and Liou, 2018 [36])	(Bolden et al., 2020 [38])			(Gray and Stites, 2013 [1]) (The SDG Partnership Guidebook, 2020 [4])	Fry and Egel (2021) [9]
Sponsors/Conveners/Process Facilitators	(Ansell and Gash, 2012 [32]) (Bryson et al., 2015 [30])	(Bolden et al., 2020 [38])	(Crosby and Bryson, 2010 [18]) (Morse, 2010 [40])		(Gray and Stites, 2013 [1]) (van Hille et al., 2018 [25]) (Pattberg and Widerberg, 2016 [3]) (The SDG Partnership Guidebook, 2020 [4])	Fry and Egel (2021) [9]

, which gives a summary of the competencies from this literature from the perspective of five research streams: collective leadership, systems leadership, integrative leadership, responsible leadership, and articles primarily focusing on MSPs in general but containing sections that speak to leadership. Examining this body of literature for common themes, we identified five competencies that are categorized as “necessary” and six competencies that encompass the organizational development, or process, competencies involved in partnership formation and implementation.

3.1. Collaborative Leadership

Collaborative leaders are recognized and accepted as leaders who are one among equals and emphasize power sharing in working with stakeholders inside and outside the organization [33,36,37]. Collaborative leadership is typically enacted by one or more individuals who have no formal hierarchical or legitimate power to lead; yet, they are tasked with empowering, involving, and mobilizing the partners toward agreed upon outcomes through a common vision founded on trust and ethical behavior [32,33,37]. This also requires leaders with a reflective mindset who are entrepreneurial and open to risk-taking, and competent in dealing with issues concerning stakeholder inclusion, imbalances in power, the decision-making process, negotiating agreement, and the distribution of resources [32,33]. This process of collaboration can be overwhelmingly complex, which often requires leaders to be sponsors or champions within the stakeholder community and/or professional consultants who come from outside the stakeholder community to help facilitate and maintain the integrity of the collaboration process, manage conflict among stakeholders, and identify and achieve value-creating opportunities [32,37].

3.2. Systems Leadership

Systems leadership is widely acknowledged to be essential in addressing the “wicked” issues characteristic of sustainable development. It expands upon the earlier organizationally focused notions of shared, distributed, and collective leadership by shifting leaders’ attention beyond organizational boundaries and across multiple levels of analysis [38]. Essential to this is the requirement for a deep understanding of system dynamics as the foundation for inclusive engagement—both physical and virtual—of all stakeholders [5,34]. System leaders seek to address complex social challenges by catalyzing, enabling, and orchestrating systems-level change by empowering large, diverse networks to achieve shared goals. Systems leaders are committed to the health of the network and nurture a similar commitment in others by working to shift the conditions through which others in the network can collectively learn and make progress [21].

3.3. Integrative Leadership

Integrative leadership is a response to the hierarchical, leader–assumptions typical of traditional models of leadership. It can be viewed as a communal activity that nurtures a process of developing MSP across organizational, sectoral, and jurisdictional boundaries [39,40]. It brings together diverse stakeholders to address complex problems and achieve the common good, whereby the power to adopt and deliver effective solutions is shared among sectors and organizations within sectors. Integrative leaders initiate discussions and/or joint initiatives that help partnership members recognize problems and their stake in those problems and seek collaborative solutions to resolve them. Of particular importance is the necessity to foster the essential connections, resources, and strategies needed for partnership effectiveness [18]. Integrative leaders understand that every success is dependent upon cultivating insightful, mindful relationships with individuals and teams who are then willing to support and champion the larger transformation of the partnership [35].

3.4. Responsible Leadership

Austin et al. [31] note that, although responsible leadership research is well established and ever-growing, the 25 most cited articles in the field seldom mention the words collaboration, cooperation, and stakeholder relations, with cross-sector partnerships rarely being discussed (c.f. [9]). In response, they offer a conceptual framework that emphasizes the pivotal role of responsible leadership in transformative collaboration through a commitment to honor the moral duties owed to their stakeholders while simultaneously seeking to foster systems change that will optimize the long-term interests of the organization, society, and the environment, best expressed in an integrated way by the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Because there is also the need for an internal transformation to take place in the partnering organizations, responsible leaders must also cultivate a collaborative-oriented, inclusive mindset with corresponding behaviors to co-create a compelling vision of the future and build deep trust among the partners through an integrated set of shared values.

3.5. General MSP Articles That Address Leadership of MSP

There are five general studies and reports that address the leadership of MSP. These articles were discussed in the previous section but are reviewed again through a specific leadership lens. The most extensive in this regard are “The SDG Partnership Guidebook” [4] and “Sustainability through Partnerships” [1], which both speak to the importance of the full range of both necessary and partnership development competencies.“ The Presidio Institute report [24] also covers the gamut of competencies, although they do not directly address the role that sponsors or conveners may play, nor do they stress the importance of stakeholder negotiation.The Presdio Sloan research report [2] on collaboration and leadership for sustainability explores the role the board of directors must play in guiding their companies’ sustainability efforts, emphasizing the importance of vision, a culture grounded in trust, ethical behavior, and collaborative decision making as critical for stakeholder collaborations. Pattberg and Widerberg [3] discuss leadership within the context of nine conditions for enhancing the performance of MSP for sustainable development, especially the need for conveners or orchestrators who fulfill the function of bringing stakeholders to the table and managing the collaborative decision-making process. Van Hille et al. [25] focus on two tensions related to the convener role, which are persistent over time—a leader without formal authority over partner stakeholders, yet who is also one of the partners in the process and, because of this, has a vested interest in the collaboration.

3.6. Global Leadership for Sustainability

Table 2 reveals that, apart from responsible and integrative leadership, all of the necessary and partnership development competencies considered necessary for leading multi-sector partnerships focused on sustainability are considered essential. The table also reveals that the global leadership for sustainability model [9] incorporates and extends the conceptual domain of the most widely cited approaches to leadership focused on sustainability. In other words, GLfS is a leadership model that incorporates the necessary and partnership development competencies for effective leadership of transformative MSP focused on sustainability.

Global leadership for sustainability (GLfS) is a model for organizational transformation to a learning organization designed to facilitate vision and value congruence across the individual, empowered team, organization, and stakeholder ecosystem levels. GLfS (see Figure 1) is grounded in being-centered leadership theory, spiritual leadership theory, and the spiritual leadership model, which has seen extensive research, validation, and application ([42,43,44,45,46]). GLfS requires the cultivation of a global mindset for sustainability (GMS), which fosters leadership for sustainability through hope/faith in a vision for sustainability and sustainable development and an organizational culture based on the values of altruistic love. Leadership for sustainability then satisfies the fundamental needs of both leaders and followers for spiritual well-being through a sense of (1) calling/purpose to be change agents for sustainability and (2) belonging or membership in a loving, supportive community for sustainable development. In turn, spiritual well-being positively influences the economic, social, and environmental outcomes for sustainability that are inherently represented through triple bottom line key performance indicators.

3.6.1. Global Mindset for Sustainability

Fry and Egel [9] make the case that leaders cultivate a GMS only when they reach an elevated state of consciousness. Perhaps most importantly, leaders must embrace self-awareness through contemplative practices that allow them to be more present moment-to-moment (e.g., prayer, meditation, Tai Chi, yoga, chanting, visualizations and affirmations, journaling, scriptural readings, creating art or music, solitude, silence, pilgrimage, service, fasting, and other forms of self-denial and asceticism). This helps ensure that they are able to discern their strengths and weaknesses better and thus not be overly influenced by negative emotions and to not fall blindly or unconsciously into selfish actions that are inappropriate, destructive, or self-contradictory [47]. When leaders enter this contemplative space, they relinquish the belief that the ego and intellect could resolve the many spiritual issues that power and wealth create [48,49,50].

3.6.2. Leadership for Sustainability through Hope/Faith, Vision, and Altruistic Love

A GMS provides the foundation and source for LfS and the cultivation of the necessary competencies for leading transformative MSP focused on sustainability. Referencing Figure 1, implementing leadership for sustainability through hope/faith in a vision for sustainable development grounded in a partnership culture based on the values of altruistic love is essential for developing effective relationships among the partners who comprise the MSP.

Vision

A compelling vision fuels organizational success by defining its aspirations and rallying leaders and followers [51,52]. This is crucial for MSPs facing intense competition, rapid advancements, and fleeting advantages [53]. To effectively mobilize MSP, a vision must be broadly appealing, chart a defined journey, inspire hope, uphold high ideals, and set a high benchmark for performance excellence [54]. Co-creating such a compelling, inspirational vision for sustainability with all actively involved partners becomes paramount, as it serves to fuel a sense of collective purpose for sustainable development.

Hope/Faith

Hope/faith fuels sustainable MSP and acts as the internal engine driving the vision. It is the unwavering belief that sustainability is the necessary path for both survival and thriving. This conviction transcends mere profit and fosters trust in the vision’s pursuit. MacArthur’s “vision quest” metaphor aptly compares this faith to preparing for and running a race, driven by the hope for victory and the joy of the journey itself [55]. Similar to Sweeney et al.’s [56] view of the role that faith plays for soldiers in battle, it provides the direction and will to persist through arduous trials, believing the experience itself will provide a life worth living.

Altruistic Love

Altruistic love is defined as “a sense of wholeness, harmony, and well-being produced through care, concern, and appreciation for both self and others” ([57], p. 712). This emerges through the practice of values like integrity, kindness, and compassion, fostering a sense of interconnectedness among stakeholders. In today’s complex world, cooperation, not competition, fuels success. Partners unite around a shared passion for sustainability, sensing and shaping their environment, seizing opportunities, and adapting to change [43]. This culture of MSP collaboration driven by altruistic love is the key to navigating today’s dynamic landscape.

3.6.3. Spiritual Well-Being

Referencing Figure 1, leadership for sustainability positively impacts spiritual well-being as MSP leaders exemplify altruistic love, fostering hope/faith in a shared vision for sustainability. Spiritual well-being comprises two aspects [43]: (1) a sense of purpose and calling as a MSP change agent, providing meaning and impact, and (2) a sense of belonging to a loving community, where leaders and followers feel appreciated and supported in their commitment to the partnership.

Purpose/Calling

Inherent to the human experience is the universal yearning for a purpose or calling that makes a difference in the world. A strong purpose combats doubts and distractions, elevating one’s focus beyond personal circumstances [58]. In sustainability, this purpose fosters intrinsic motivation, drawing on the internal strength to serve others through the MSP. This essence of sustainability aligns with the Business Roundtable’s manifesto, shifting business focus from profit to how leaders and MSP must heed the call to have a more positive influence on society and the environment [59].

Membership

Membership embodies the universal need for belonging and community, where one is understood, appreciated, and accepted. This sense of membership is crucial for MSP as it nurtures compassionate identification with others, personal ethics, and conduct codes that recognize the universality of shared pain and suffering. A sense of membership in a supportive community enhances the partners’ sense of importance, value, and belonging, leading to a deeper connection with others and an expanded sense of unity with all living beings and nature.

3.6.4. Triple Bottom Line Outcomes

In terms of tangible outcomes, the three pillars of sustainability represented through the triple bottom line—profitability, employee well-being, and social/environmental impact—provide the lens through which the MSP defines and evaluates its success. Through this lens, meeting the partnership participants’ need for spiritual well-being can deliver positive individual, team, organizational, and partnership outcomes [43,60]. When MSP leaders share a common purpose for sustainability and feel part of a community supportive of this purpose, the partnership excels in exceeding stakeholder expectations for sustainable development.

4. Essential Competencies for Leadership of Transformative MSP Focused on Sustainability

GLfS requires MSP leadership teams to create vision and value congruence and develop effective relationships between the MSP and environmental stakeholders. Several necessary and partnership development competencies are essential for implementing the GLfS model to facilitate this congruence.

4.1. Necessary MSP Competencies

Referencing Table 2, with the exception of Austin et al. [31], all of the MSP leadership approaches emphasize the importance of the necessary competencies for effective leadership of transformative MSP.

4.1.1. Mindfulness/Reflection Competency through Cultivation of a Global Mindset for Sustainability

Referencing Table 2, all of the leadership theories, except responsible leadership, emphasize the importance of a mindful or reflective practice, including

• Cultivating the ability to be self-aware in all areas where collaboration is essential [32];
• Acquiring a reflective approach that starts with learning about ourselves as individuals, which leads to careful consideration and planning in advance regarding the issues from your partners’ as well as your own perspective ([4,33];
• Developing a practice to become aware of our default habits, along with the ability to discern and choose creativity in the moment [23,24];
• Exploring the skills of inquiry and “not knowing” to be able to critically reflect on their unique and complex system [34];
• Fostering individual and shared reflection to “think about our thinking”, to perceive how hidden assumptions limit the ability to hear a different point of view and appreciate different points of view and each other’s emotional and cognitive reality, which is essential for building trust [5,21];
• Finally, in the most comprehensive explanation of the importance of mindfulness, Perlman et al. [35] emphasize the significance of cultivating informed mindfulness that connects mindful self-awareness and self-regulation with educated decision making.

However, while the literature on leading transformative MSP cited above emphasizes the importance of mindfulness and reflection, there is still the need for a broader context that incorporates spiritual practices as a component of a leadership model that explains direct linkages to key MSP outcomes.

Egel and Fry [61], as well as Fry and Egel [9], expanded the existing conceptual landscape of global leadership and leadership for sustainability literature through their work on cultivating a global mindset and the GLfS model. In doing so, they established that previous research in these areas has not adequately addressed the global dimension that GMS represents, since global leadership primarily emphasizes business skills for strategy creation, while sustainability offers the lens through which leadership for sustainability should be enacted. Thus, the GLfS model not only integrates and extends global leadership and leadership for sustainability theories but also provides a more focused and robust model for leadership of transformative MSP focused on sustainability.

GMS is rooted in the five levels of being that form the foundation for Being-centered Leadership ([43,46,62]:

• Level V: Contingency Leadership—Adapt leadership to fit the context.
• Level IV: Vision and Values Leadership—Create shared vision and values.
• Level III: Conscious Leadership—Cultivate self-awareness and spiritual growth.
• Level II: Spiritual Leadership—Lead with love, service, and presence.
• Level I: Non-Dual Leadership—Embrace oneness and reconcile opposites).

“Each level encompasses the leader’s experience of the world, their core beliefs and values, and life in general and, through this filter, the leader’s ontological experience of reality and the epistemological context for how they cognitively know their reality for decision-making and subsequent behavior” ([9], pp. 11–12). Fry and Egel [9] proposed that a GMS is only possible when leaders are operating more constantly from Levels III and II, as it is only at these levels that they begin to realize the futility of the self-centered and materialistic way of life at levels V and IV, and the suffering and absence of meaning inherent in it.

At Level III, by committing to contemplative practices and becoming more aware of the effect of negative emotions that lead to suffering [62], leaders undergo a transformative shift in their values and priorities. Rather than selfishly focusing on the trappings of personal success and economic gain, MSP leaders at Level III prioritize “being” over “having and doing,” recognizing the significance of cultivating a spiritual practice as a means of personal growth and interconnectedness with all that is. These practices may involve daily rituals, such as prayer, meditation, reading, or similar actions with the aim of transcending the self and embracing a broader, other-centered perspective. They become more attuned to the present moment, actively observing their thoughts, emotions, and bodily sensations—commonly known as mindfulness. This heightened self-awareness fosters self-transcendence and greater compassion and empathy for others, gradually becoming more prominent and consistent at Level II [62], which is the level at which GLfS manifests.

4.1.2. Culture Grounded in Trust and Ethical Behavior

Referencing Table 2, the necessary competency of creating a culture grounded in trust and ethical behavior is developed and practiced through cultivating the values of altruistic love. Three main themes emerge from the literature for this competency, which support this proposition.

• Cultivating trust among stakeholders through transparency and respect for divergent voices that allow for fruitful deliberations [1,2,3,4,5,18,21,30,31,32,37].
• Sharing resources, such as information, and demonstrating competency and follow-through ([4,18,30,37]).
• Development of an inclusive, caring culture, a shared understanding of the problem, and effective working relationships, building a commitment to collective values [1,4,5,30,35,38].
• GLfS incorporates and extends these themes. In cultivating a GMS, global leaders for sustainability develop and incorporate two fundamental ethical principles into their strategic decision making: an ethic of remote moral responsibility and an ethic of care and compassion toward stakeholders [9].
• Remote moral responsibility to stakeholders who are distant in time and space, which involves expanding an organization’s moral imagination and sense of responsibility to consider the far-reaching impact of its actions on stakeholders beyond direct organizational interests, including future generations [63].
• Acceptance of stakeholder legitimacy from a moral point of view that is grounded in care and compassion to protect the rights of those stakeholders who are not in a position of power to claim and protect their rights [21,64].

These principles are necessary for cultivating trust among stakeholders, sharing resources, and developing an inclusive, caring MSP culture, as they serve to reinforce a moral schema and the values of altruistic love (integrity, patience, kindness, forgiveness, acceptance, gratitude, humility, courage, trust, loyalty, and compassion) that strengthen the MSP dedication to sustainability over strategies that focus primarily on economic outcomes and enriching managerial elites and profit-seeking stakeholders [65,66]. It is only by deeply ingraining these ethical principles through a shared culture grounded in the values of altruistic love that the fundamental dignity of disenfranchised social and environmental stakeholders is deemed worthy of care, moral deliberation, and strategic attention in decision making. These also work to extend the MSP interests toward a more balanced, triple bottom line approach that extends moral responsibility to the social and environmental pillars of sustainable development.

4.1.3. Vision, Shared Pupose, and Goals/Building and Nurturing Stakeholder Relationships

Referencing Table 2, with the exception of [34], all studies focusing on the necessary competency of creating a common vision, purpose, and shared goals also emphasized the importance of building and nurturing system-focused stakeholder relationships, including the emergence of two major themes.

• Commitment to both stakeholder engagement and a shared vision/purpose [1,4,5,18,30,31,38,39,40].
• Strong emotional commitment and connection to both their vision and stakeholder network [1,4,5,38,40]).

Nurturing stakeholder relationships is vital for the effective leadership of MSP and is a central focus for GLfS (see the “Implications for Practice” in the Discussion section). Like the heads and tails of a coin, they are inseparable. The vision/stakeholder analysis also forms the basis for establishing and reinforcing the two ethical principles for sustainability and the cultural values of altruistic love, which serve as the primary means of communicating, reinforcing, and rewarding appropriate partner behavior.

Vision in MSPs is not just a declaration of long-term aspirations; it is a roadmap shaped significantly by the expectations of the partners themselves [67,68,69]. Cultivating stakeholder relationships involves identifying and understanding the impact and influence of various groups or individuals who can affect or are affected by the partnership’s actions, objectives, and policies. It is essential for understanding the diverse perspectives and interests of partners, facilitating more informed decision making, and ensuring a holistic approach to strategy development [70,71,72].

A comprehensive vision/stakeholder analysis is an essential process that helps guarantee that the vision is not only inspirational but also achievable, taking into account the diverse interests and realities of all partners and external stakeholders [73]. This synergy is imperative, as it ensures that the MSP is both forward-looking and realistically grounded, since the partners’ expectations and concerns influence the MSP as a whole, making it crucial for them to integrate their perspectives into the partnership’s long-term goals and strategies. It also involves identifying, understanding, and engaging with external stakeholders affected by the partnership’s initiatives, thereby aligning the vision with both partner and external stakeholders’ realities. This alignment is crucial, since neglecting both partnership and external stakeholder perspectives can result in resistance and conflict.

The advantages of aligning the vision of the partnership and nurturing stakeholder relationships through a stakeholder analysis are significant. It fosters partner and stakeholder buy-in, mitigates risks by addressing concerns early, and improves decision making through enriched insights. Engaging partners and external stakeholders also enhances innovation by uncovering new opportunities and solutions and providing continuous feedback, which is vital for adapting to changing market conditions and regulatory environments [67,69]. The ultimate success of any vision hinges on the support and engagement of both partners and key stakeholders. Thus, a vision must strike a balance between ambition and practicality, shaped by both the aspirations of the partnership and the real-world influences of its stakeholders.

4.2. Partnership Development Competencies

Referencing Table 2, with the exception of Austin et al. [31], all of the MSP leadership approaches emphasize the importance of the full range of partnership competencies that encompass the partnership development interventions considered essential for implementing effective transformational MSP. Rooted in the field of organizational development, these interventions involve designing and implementing strategies aimed at modifying individual behaviors, group dynamics, organizational structures, or leadership styles [74]. They encompass a planned and systematic process of introducing change within the partnership to address a specific issue or improve overall effectiveness [75]. The ultimate goal is to enhance MSP performance, adaptability, and well-being, ultimately aligning people, processes, and resources with the partnership’s vision and strategic goals [76].

5. Discussion

We began this paper by providing an overview of the MSP literature and highlighting the need for a better explanation of the leadership requirements. We followed with a review of the leadership of MSP literature that, collectively, identified the necessary and partnership development competencies literature for effective leadership of transformative MSPs and concluded that Fry and Egel’s [9] model of global leadership for sustainability incorporates these competencies and extends the current approaches to the leadership of MSPs focused on transformative systems change. Moreover, the GLfS model not only integrates and extends MSP leadership theories but also provides a more focused and robust framework for the research and practice of leadership of transformative MSPs focused on sustainability.

5.1. Implications for Theory and Research

The detailed analysis of almost 40 years of scholarship on MSPs shows some very clear trends, and our analysis of related leadership theories and contribution of an expanded GLfS for the MSP model addresses several of these trends while offering suggestions for future theory building and research.

The first is an issue with the levels of analysis. The default perspective in most of this literature is at the organization level, with the partnership itself as the organization. This is despite partnerships, by their very definition, being inter-organizational phenomena composed of representatives from each of the organizations forming the partnership. Gray and Stiles [1] begin to parcel this out, noting that representatives of the partnership must have decision-making authority for their organization to ensure partnership success. Our extended GLfS model addresses this by providing a profile of the necessary and partnership development competencies for leading an MSP as an organizational representative to a MSP. This profile of critical individual actors is a major contribution to the literature on MSPs and offers much potential for future research.

The second theme is that the partnership literature, taken broadly, makes a compelling case that collaboration across sectors—the primary ones being business, government, and non-profit—is critical to addressing the complex challenges of our times. The issue we specifically chose to focus on in this piece is sustainable development. The need for partnerships for sustainable development, as articulated specifically in Sustainable Development Goal 17 [4], is one of the most, if not the most, challenging global issue. The extended GLfS model, centered on the original global leadership for sustainability model [9], is specifically suited to promote Sustainable Development Goals and thus provides a rich avenue for further exploration.

Third, the history of MSPs up until recently was riddled with descriptions of those that failed rather than succeeded. Only in the past ten years have we seen this narrative change and research outlining what is needed for a successful MSP. The studies on the “success” factors described in our historical analysis [1,2,3] begin to chart leader or facilitator roles and responsibilities but provide little detail. These leaders must be able to facilitate interactions in a way that creates the conditions for early goal definition, shared vision, handling power differences and conflict, and promoting trust and continuous learning. The GLfS competencies address these factors, and Pattberg and Widerberg [3] call for the “operationalization” of leader qualities. In addition, an important distinction in these studies and those few attempting to outline a leader profile [4,18,23] is the realization that a leader needs competencies that relate to both personal qualities and process facilitation [25]. As the detailed commentary associated with Table 2 analysis shows, the extended GLfS model specifically addresses both sets of competencies.

A key question in this literature that begs future research is whether the partnership representatives can serve as the leaders/facilitators or whether an external convenor/facilitator is necessary. Van Hille et al. [25] provide the best analysis of this issue, demonstrating the tensions of leading without authority and/or facilitating with convenor neutrality versus partner stakeholder self-interest. Our analysis and the proposed extended GLfS model promote the proposition that the stakeholder representatives should serve as facilitators, as they will bring passion and drive to the work, which external facilitators will not. This proposition commands future research.

Another turning point in partnership research is work, which recognizes that for transformational change to truly occur at the inter-organizational level, the individuals involved must be able to focus on the unique inter-personal relationships at the very primary level of analysis while viewing the big picture at the complex systems level ([8,23]). This quality is addressed in the GLfS model by offering the cultivation of a GMS that is central to the mindfulness/reflection competency and the ability to build and nurture system-focused stakeholder relationships and networks. Most importantly, as GMS is the source or foundation for GLfS, its cultivation must be the primary emphasis in any MSP initiative focused on transformative systems change.

Research is also needed to investigate how incorporating the two ethical principles necessary for sustainability provides the foundation for altruistic love in GLfS. Leaders with deeply held beliefs concerning the welfare of human and sentient beings and nature are more likely to develop sustainability-based ethical systems to guide the MSP’s strategic decision making and actions. This, coupled with the cultivation of the necessary and partnership development competencies, provides the foundation for effectively addressing any issues that arise due to conflicting goals. In doing so, they will champion that which represents the best interests of the planet and its people, respond to their concerns, and consciously work to develop and improve the sustainability-based capabilities of the partner organizations they represent [60].

It is clear, therefore, that organizations that choose to engage in a MSP must choose their partnership representatives very carefully. By choosing individuals who have the necessary partnership development competencies, the organization is staffing the partnership in a fashion that will promote improved performance. At the same time, if an organization is committed to engaging in partnerships to achieve transformative sustainable development but does not have individuals in the organization with these competencies, it can either hire for these qualities/capabilities or engage in appropriate training. Further research can “test” whether partnerships involving representatives meeting the GLfS competencies are, in fact, more successful, meaning they accomplish their mutually agreed upon goals.

5.2. Implications for Practice

Fry and Egel [9] note that GLfS requires leaders with extraordinary decision-making and problem-solving competencies, as they must operate within complex, interconnected, and dynamic environmental, economic, and social systems [77]. Although the GLfS model has been applied to organizations [9], we proposed that it is also valid for the leadership of transformative MSP at the interorganizational level. As such, the GLfS model provides an implementation framework for the development and use of the necessary and partnership development competencies (see Table 2).

5.2.1. Implementing the Necessary Competencies

For the necessary competencies, several ongoing activities and processes are critical for the practice of GLfS [9]:

• Implement management practices for cultivating a GMS;
• Administer a GLfS survey to establish a baseline and raise key partnership issues [9];
• Conduct vision/stakeholder analysis [43,78]

  ◦

  The partnership, through representatives from all relevant stakeholders/partners, works to co-create the partnership’s vision, purpose, and goals, and the two ethical principles for sustainability as a foundation foster and reinforce cultural values based on altruistic love;

  ◦

  Identify stakeholder expectations;

  ◦

  Develop stakeholder effectiveness criteria to meet these expectations;

  ◦

  Identify issues for each stakeholder that fails to meet these expectations;

  ◦

  Organize and create empowered teams/task forces around key issues;

  ◦

  Develop goals and strategies to address these issues;

  ◦

  Develop a partner information system to measure effectiveness.

5.2.2. Cultivating a GMS

Fry and Egel [9] advocate several voluntary management practices for cultivating a GMS that will also serve to nurture the mindfulness/reflection competency. The most important point is to offer mindfulness training to partnership leaders. It is also essential to foster voluntary programs that cultivate employees’ GMS throughout the partnership [43,79]. This can be achieved by incorporating various management practices, including

• Encouraging partnership leaders to develop personal mission statements that serve as the foundation and guide for GLfS;
• Incorporating a brief moment of silence before meetings;
• Providing a space for reflection and centering;
• Designating a dedicated room for silence, where partnership leaders can seek moments of solitude and contemplation;
• Establishing spiritual support groups, creating spaces for partnership leaders to connect and discuss their spiritual journey;
• Offering partnership leaders coaching and mentoring opportunities to foster technical and leadership skills, nurturing growth and formation in members to enhance their personal and professional development;
• Cultivating a supportive culture that encourages open and meaningful conversations among partnership leaders about their fulfillment and spiritual aspirations, nurturing a culture of understanding, empathy, and mutual support.

5.2.3. Administer the GLfS Survey

Conduct a periodic assessment of the partnership’s GLfS using the GLfS survey methodology [9,80]. This survey is used to establish a baseline for the components of the GLfS. The survey, usually administered in intervals of 12–18 months, also identifies the key issues for MSP interventions.

5.2.4. Conducting a Vision/Stakeholder Analysis

Using the results of the GLfS survey, the MSP leadership team should conduct a vision/stakeholder analysis to identify both partnership and key external stakeholder issues and provide a basis for a partnership-wide dialog concerning the appropriate goals and strategies to address these issues. This process focuses on identifying and addressing key issues, discovering what works well, why it works well, and how partnership issues are best addressed. The vision/stakeholder effectiveness analysis views the MSP as being imbedded in layers or levels (individual, group, organizational, partnership, societal), all of whom have a legitimate strategic and moral stake in the organization’s performance.

5.2.5. Putting into Practice a Partnership Culture Grounded in Trust and Ethical Behavior through the Values of Altruistic Love

The vision/stakeholder analysis is foundational in strengthening the two ethical principles for sustainability and the values of altruistic love. These principles and values are essential for acknowledging, guiding, and enhancing suitable behavior among partners. To set the stage for initial change efforts, the partnership leaders must be authentic and model these principles and values through their everyday attitudes and behaviors.

In sum, all members or representatives of the MSP should be offered the opportunity to participate in the vision/stakeholder analysis process. Partnership development interventions should not be initiated until the partnership has established a baseline for intervention through the GLfS survey and conducted a thorough vision/stakeholder effectiveness analysis that has identified key issues, as it is crucial for all partnership participants to know, believe in, and be fully committed to the vision and cultural values of the partnership.

5.2.6. Implementing the Partnership Development Competencies

To further embed GLfS in a MSP, ongoing organization development interventions are crucial. These interventions help identify critical issues and foster MSP effectiveness and success, along with partnership competencies and skills training. The interventions include partnership representatives’ involvement and teambuilding, collaborative decision making, conflict management, change management, entrepreneurial innovation, large group interventions, systems mapping, three-horizons planning, and the appreciative inquiry summit [21,74,81]. Partnerships can effectively adopt and sustain GLfS principles by utilizing these interventions when appropriate.

When these partnership development interventions are effectively implemented, global leaders for sustainability can advance active dialog among MSP partners. By fostering a shared vision, these leaders enable balanced and equitable decision making and uphold two fundamental ethical principles crucial for sustainability. They recognize and embrace the constant evolution within organizations, operating within an action framework that promotes accountability and adaptability. Recognizing this change often generates conflict; these leaders understand that such conflicts can spark new discoveries, ideas, and innovations that can revitalize organizations, communities, and the environment. By cultivating a culture that values dialog, accountability, and adaptability, leaders for sustainability contribute to the ongoing renewal and growth of all partners.

6. Conclusions

Our extensive review of the MSP literature revealed that, although much effort has been directed toward using these partnerships for systems transformation—especially as it applies to issues focused on sustainable development and theory building—the research on the leadership necessary for these initiatives to be successful is sorely lacking. In response, we offered GLfS as a model for leading transformative MSPs as an avenue to achieving progress toward Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 17 and all the SDGs. We also proposed that, by staffing a MSP with organizational representatives who exhibit the necessary partnership development competencies in the extended GLfS model, these partnerships will have a greatly improved chance of promoting transformational partnerships, achieving system-wide change for the triple bottom line.

Global leaders for sustainability—who are committed to the success of MSPs seeking transformative systems change for sustainability—prioritize mindful awareness, experimenting with engagement strategies while respecting the value of individuals and stakeholders through their similarities and interconnectedness to others, all life and nature, as well as through their diversity and distinctiveness. These leaders genuinely engage others in the decision-making process focusing on mutual gain. They make educated decisions and are open to taking calculated risks, learning from their mistakes, sharing what they discover in the process, and steering clear of the arrogance that comes from the ego-driven certainty of “right” answers. This approach not only fosters mutual respect but also positions them as exemplary role models, inspiring commitment to the partnership’s vision of driving transformative systems change and the promise of a more sustainable and equitable future.