Destination leadership, collaboration and the effect of trust and power within the tourism network of North Karelia. A case study.

(1)

UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies Business School

DESTINATION LEADERSHIP, COLLABORATION AND THE EFFECT OF TRUST AND POWER WITHIN THE TOURISM NETWORK OF NORTH KARELIA.

A CASE STUDY.

Master’s thesis Tourism Marketing and Management Hanna Seitsonen (180326) June 2020

(2)

Abstract

UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND

Faculty:

Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies

Department:

Business School

Author:

Hanna Seitsonen

Supervisor:

Raija Komppula Title:

Destination leadership, collaboration and the effect of trust and power within the tourism network of North Karelia. A case study.

Main subject:

Tourism Marketing and Management

Level:

Master’s thesis

Date:

19.06.2020

Number of pages:

77+15

Abstract:

Research of networks of tourism stakeholders is often limited to a singular viewpoint and the complexity of relationships between tourism stakeholders has not received much attention in research. Several researchers have suggested to include the concepts of power and trust to research in order to gain more in-depth information regarding tourist destinations’ networks’ dynamics.

This study focused on examining the dynamics within the tourism stakeholder network in North Karelia. Building on suggestions from previous research, the accurate focuses are, firstly, how destination leadership appears in the network, how does power appear in the network and lastly, how does trust affect collaboration within the network.

This study was carried out as an intrinsic case study. Data was collected by semi-structured interviews either face to face or on the phone. The interviewees were former or current stakeholders in the tourism network of North Karelia.

The findings of this study indicate uncertainty about destination leadership as well as unclarity of the stakeholders’

roles within the region’s tourism network. Secondly, projects were found to have a high influence on the network and the region’s tourism development: many projects were seen as unconnected and the use of project funding and other resources as inconsistent. Thirdly, power division wasn’t found to have as great an impact on the network as previous research has suggested. Lastly, the importance of trust, recognition of meaning of trust as well as recognition of factors affecting trust were found vital for successful cooperation.

Based on the findings, clarification of roles of the different stakeholders as well as the functions and contents of projects and other joint operations were found important. It is in addition recommended for all stakeholders to define and communicate their values and expectations for cooperation clearly in order to establish and maintain trust among the partners in cooperation.

Future research is needed to examine projects and their benefits in more detail as well as to gain more in-depth knowledge regarding power and trust in various tourism stakeholder networks.

Key words:

Tourist destination, destination leadership, destination management, tourism stakeholder collaboration, power, trust

(3)

Tiivistelmä

ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO

Tiedekunta:

Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunta

Yksikkö:

Kauppatieteiden laitos

Tekijä:

Hanna Seitsonen

Ohjaaja:

Raija Komppula

Työn nimi (suomeksi ja englanniksi): Destination leadership, collaboration and the effect of trust and power within the tourism network of North Karelia. A case study.

Matkailukohteen johtaminen, yhteistyö sekä vallan ja luottamuksen vaikutus Pohjois-Karjalan matkailuverkostossa. Tapaustutkimus.

Pääaine:

Matkailumarkkinointi ja johtaminen

Työn laji:

Pro gradu -tutkielma

Aika:

19.06.2020

Sivuja:

77+15

Tiivistelmä:

Matkailukohteiden toimijoiden verkostoja on harvoin tutkittu laaja-alaisesti, jolloin toimijoiden välisten suhteiden tutkiminen on jäänyt vähäiseksi. Vallan ja luottamuksen sisällyttämistä tutkimukseen on suositeltu useissa alan tutkimuksissa, jotta saadaan syvällisempää tietoa matkailukohteiden verkostojen dynamiikasta.

Tutkimuksen tarkoitus on tarkastella Pohjois-Karjalan matkailualan verkoston toimijoiden dynamiikkaa.

Aiempaan tutkimukseen pohjautuen, tässä tutkimuksessa pyritään selvittämään Pohjois-Karjalan matkailukohteen ja matkailutoimijoiden verkoston johtamista, vallan merkitystä verkostossa sekä luottamuksen merkitystä ja vaikutusta yhteistyöhön verkostossa.

Tutkimus toteutettiin intensiivisenä tapaustutkimuksena. Aineisto kerättiin puolistrukturoidun haastattelun keinoin joko kasvotusten tai puhelimitse. Haastateltaviin kuului sekä nykyisiä Pohjois-Karjalan alueen matkailuverkoston toimijoita sekä aikaisemmin alueen matkailuverkostossa toimineita henkilöitä.

Tutkimustulosten mukaan toimijoiden keskuudessa on sekä epäselvyyttä toimijoiden rooleista verkostossa että epätietoisuutta siitä, kuka johtaa alueen matkailuverkostoa. Toiseksi, vallalla ei tulosten mukaan ole yhtä suurta merkitystä kuin aiemmat tutkimukset ovat esittäneet. Kolmanneksi, hankkeiden vaikutus verkostoon ja matkailun kehittymiseen alueella koettiin merkittävänä useiden hankkeiden hajanaisen luonteen sekä hankerahoituksen ja muiden resurssien epätarkoituksenmukaisen käytön vuoksi. Lopuksi, luottamuksen merkitys, merkityksen tunnistaminen sekä luottamukseen vaikuttavien tekijöiden tunnistaminen korostuivat menestyvässä yhteistyössä.

Tutkimuksen tulosten mukaan toimijoiden roolien sekä hankkeiden ja muiden yhteistyötoimintojen tehtävien ja sisältöjen selkeyttäminen nähtiin tärkeänä. Lisäksi kaikkien toimijoiden tulisi määritellä ja kommunikoida selkeästi omista arvoistaan sekä odotuksistaan yhteistyötä kohtaan, jotta yhteistyössä saadaan luotua ja ylläpidettyä luottamusta.

Lisätutkimusta tarvitaan hankkeista ja niiden hyödyistä sekä syvällisempää tietoa vallasta ja luottamuksesta useissa matkailualan toimijoiden verkostoissa.

Avainsanat:

Matkailukohde, matkailukohteen johtaminen, matkailutoimijoiden yhteistyö, valta, luottamus

(4)

1. Introduction

1.1. Background and research gap

Destination leadership has received some attention in research in recent years (Beritelli 2011a, Beritelli & Bieger 2014, Pechlaner et al. 2013, Valente et al. 2014). However, research on destination leadership has mostly focused on studying a leading individual or organization, when, in fact, leadership and a tourism network’s dynamics are affected by the complex relationships among stakeholders. This study contributes to the discussion by examining destination leadership and network dynamics within the tourism network of North Karelia.

Leadership and its nature are highly contextual issues and hence, it is useful to study leadership within its context (Collinson 2014, Conger 1998, Hogg 2001, Owusu-Bempah 2014, Valente et al. 2014).

Leadership is affected by the leader’s own characteristics and leadership style as well as the whole collective and the relationships and communication within it (Stilling Blichfeldt et al. 2014, Crevani et al. 2010, Graen & Uhl-Bien 1995, Hogg et al. 2012). Contextuality, nature of resources, stakeholders’ differing opinions and power distribution as well as the abstract nature of the concept of leadership have made the research of the topic more difficult (Beritelli 2011a, Beritelli & Bieger 2014, Pechlaner et al. 2013, Valente et al. 2014). Researchers have stressed the need to study influence, power, trust, knowledge and knowledge-sharing in the context of destination leadership since they are a part of all social relations (Beritelli & Bieger 2014, Stilling Blichfeldt et al. 2014, McTiernan et al. 2019, Nunkoo & Gursoy 2016, Nunkoo & Ramkissoon 2012, Nunkoo et al. 2012, Saito & Ruhanen 2017).

Tourism literature and research has been criticized for “emphasizing unity and collaboration” as well as “romanticizing interactions and relations” (Stilling Blichfeldt et al. 2014, 75). The levels of power and influence within a network can vary greatly and therefore some stakeholders have more influence in processes of collaboration and decision-making (Saito & Ruhanen 2017). Even though community- based tourism planning and development is seen as important, it doesn’t automatically solve conflicts and bring harmony to the community (Nunkoo & Gursoy 2016). Numerous factors affect a community’s dynamics, such as differing and competing interests, different or contradicting opinions and views, complex relationships and dependency on another as well as different communication styles (Saito & Ruhanen 2017). Hence, for a better recognition of the multiplicity of individuals’

identities, asymmetrical nature of power relations, nuances and tensions, and diversity of e.g. leader- follower dialectics, the focus of studies on tourism leadership, planning and development should

(8)

2

focus on both individuals as well as relationships within the network (Beritelli & Laesser 2011, Collinson 2005, Collinson 2014).

Simplified and opposing viewpoints in tourism literature have also received criticism (Beritelli &

Laesser 2011, Collinson 2005, Collinson 2014). A leader is often viewed as either a hero or a villain which is too simplified and doesn’t consider the complex dynamics between leaders and followers (Collinson 2005). Also, the study of e.g. transformational and transactional leadership has been criticized for a simplified picture and for too easily opposing these two, considering transformational leadership as “good” leadership and transactional as “inferior” (Collinson 2014, 39).

In their analysis of research papers about systemic leadership approaches at destinations, Beritelli &

Bieger (2014) found influence and power to belong to the most significant dimensions of analysis.

Beritelli & Laesser (2011, 1299) bring about similar conclusions: when studying tourist communities as “networks of individuals, enterprises and stakeholders, issues of power gain additional significance”. The importance of including the concept of power in study of destination leadership is especially highlighted by Stilling Blichfeldt et al. (2014, 83-84): leadership often refers to an individual, whereas studying power enables more multi-directional viewpoints on destination leadership. Power gives the study of leadership more nuances and expands understanding of influence (Stilling Blichfeldt et al. 2014).

Trust is not only important “to understand the world, the functioning of institutions, decision-making processes”, but it is equally important as power “to understand human relationships, institutions and tourism development” (Nunkoo & Gursoy 2016, 518). The concepts of power and trust should be examined simultaneously in any study of social relations, as they are present in all relationships (Nunkoo et al. 2012, Nunkoo & Ramkissoon 2012, Öberg & Svensson 2010). Trust might just be the most important component of successful relationships and may, in best case, enhance the commitment of the parties involved and the emotional basis of the collaboration (Czakon & Czernek, 2016, Nunkoo & Gursoy 2016, Tuohino & Konu 2014). Commitment increases willingness to invest and create joint value, which in turn strengthens one’s position in the network (Tuohino & Konu 2014).

Trust has been found to be crucial for organizational success in the management literature as well as linked to profitability, increased satisfaction among stakeholders and organizational well-being (McTiernan et al. 2019). In collaboration between organizations, trust is vital as it allows the exchange of knowledge and learning from each other for e.g. innovation of new products and services, and therefore, to influence innovation, trust should exist at all levels (McTiernan et al. 2019). The links between e.g. trust and knowledge exchange have been studied to some extent in collaboration, but not in tourism context (McTiernan et al. 2019).

(9)

3

In context of tourism destinations, power is described as an ability to influence "within destination management, governance and planning, as well as within tourism networks" (Volgger & Pechlaner 2014, 67). It has also been stated that studies focusing on trust and power might advance competitiveness within tourism field (McTiernan et al. 2019). Since collaboration is a “prerequisite for sustainable destination planning and the good governance and management of destinations”, it is vital to understand the complexity of the dynamics and relationships within tourism networks and stakeholders’ differing views on power (Beritelli & Laesser 2011, Saito & Ruhanen 2017, 195).

Researchers of destination leadership have discussed several topics for further research regarding the topic. These include research the relation between trust and knowledge sharing, trust-related barriers, knowledge-sharing, the relational nature of leader-follower relationships, the diversity of relationships within destination networks as well as deeper understanding for how power, trust and influence are formed and how they affect collaboration (Beritelli & Laesser 2011, McTiernan et al.

2019, Reed 1997, Saito & Ruhanen 2017).

Further study of the concepts in the context of tourism development by qualitative approach has been called out by several researchers (e.g. Nunkoo & Ramkissoon 2012, Nunkoo et al. 2012, Reed 1997, Saito & Ruhanen 2017).

1.2. Purpose of the study

As stated above, further research has been called out by several researchers for clarification as well as for validation of the few studies conducted. This study aims, by means of a case study, to examine destination leadership as well as influence and trust within the tourism network in North Karelia. The research questions are the following:

1) How does destination leadership appear in the network?

a. How is destination leadership understood among stakeholders?

b. Who, or which stakeholder is regarded as the leader of the network?

2) How does influence appear in the network?

a. What factors determine a stakeholder’s influence?

b. Which stakeholders are most influential?

3) How does trust affect collaboration within the network?

a. What factors affect trust and its formation?

(10)

4

This study will be carried out as an intrinsic case study, examining the network dynamics of the tourism region North Karelia by interviewing tourism stakeholders within North Karelia. The interviewees are or have been CEOs of tourism companies in the region, or in some other way involved in the region’s tourism development.

1.3. Case North Karelia

1.3.1. North Karelia as a tourism region

In this study, North Karelia as a destination is understood as the administrative region the province of North Karelia. In December 2019, North Karelia had 161 200 residents (Tilastokeskus 2020c) and its capital, Joensuu, 76 850 residents (Tilastokeskus 2020c). In 2015, altogether 3 250 people were employed in tourism field in North Karelia of whom 650 were entrepreneurs (VisitFinland 2020). In 2018, there were altogether 44 tour operators and package travel organizers with altogether 57 person- years, 100 accommodation service providers with 407 person-years and 311 restaurants with 1 306 person-years. To compare, in Uusimaa region there were 435 tour operators and package travel organizers with 1 630 person-years, 380 accommodation providers with 3 120 person-years and 4559 restaurants with 23 856 person-years in 2019. (Tilastokeskus 2020d.) Hence, the vast majority of companies in tourism field in North Karelia are micro or small and medium enterprises (SMEs): the definition and categorization also depend on the turnover of the enterprise (Tilastokeskus 2020a, b).

In 2019, 59 % of all tourists in North Karelia were Russian: travels by Russian tourists increased by 10 % in 2019. Altogether 360 000 foreign tourists visited the region in 2019 and hence, 141 000 of them came from other countries than Russia. (Pohjois-Karjalan Maakuntaliitto 2020.)

In this research, North Karelia is regarded a community-based rural tourism area (Pike & Page 2014, Volgger & Pechlaner 2014). The term “community” refers to both tourism field stakeholders as well as local residents (Saarinen 2006). In these traditional community type of destinations there is a great variety of independent companies and other stakeholders in a scattered network, differing roles and varying degrees of power (Buffa et al. 2019).The role of a destination marketing organization (DMO) is often the role of an initiator, a mediator and a strategic leader (Volgger & Pechlaner 2013). Hence, there is usually no single organization or stakeholder that would have control over the development and management of the destination, and the numerous actors share the responsibility of destination development (Jamal & Getz 1995, Zehrer & Hallmann 2015).

According to Komppula (2014), most Finnish destinations, except for the metropolitan area and ski resorts, can be defined as rural tourism areas. A rural tourism destination is “a set of institutions and

(11)

5

stakeholders in a sparsely populated geographical and/or administrative area” (Komppula 2014, 362).

Towns in the area are surrounded by countryside (Komppula 2014). Visitors of rural tourism areas have described rural tourism as peaceful, calm, unhurried, stress-free, involving outdoor activities, such as rowing or walking in the forest, and in some cases “genuine rural life” (Komppula 2005, 13).

In these areas, the entrepreneurs e.g. create business opportunities of travellers’ desire to go back to nature, to explore and learn about agricultural life or cultural traditions (Buhalis 2000). Therefore, tourism can be a tool to develop the area further and/or create additional income for the residents (Buhalis 2000).

1.3.2. Development of the regional tourism organization

The provincial unions and municipalities started to become more active in developing tourism in the 1960s, especially campsites and other accommodation services were founded (Boxberg et al. 2001).

More comprehensive efforts to advance tourism started in the 1970s e.g. by means of financial support aimed at regional development (Boxberg et al. 2001, Juusela 2009).

In North Karelia, tourism collaboration and activities started in late 19^th century, when the romantic nationalism and karelianism movement made North Karelia and especially Koli known all around Finland. A tourism association, Matkailijayhdistyksen Joensuun haaraosasto, was founded in Joensuu in the 1890s as a branch association of the parent organization, the Finnish Travel Union (Suomen Matkailuliitto). The association’s most important goals in the first decades were to increase knowledge of the region’s attractions, to create maps and other informative material, to start shipping to Koli and to develop the infrastructure. The road to Koli was opened in 1913 and until then, the area could be reached by ferries and accommodation was possible at farms around Koli (Metsähallitus 2019a). In 1960s a tourism office was opened by the association. In 1967, Karjalan Matkailu Oy (Karelian Travel Company Ltd) was founded to promote sales and marketing in the area. The company was jointly owned by municipalities and private actors. (Pohjois-Karjalan Matkailu ry 2018.) The national park of Koli was founded in 1991, and the Koli Nature Centre Ukko in 2000 (Metsähallitus 2019a).

The main activity of the association during these times were to organize trips, maintain the Koli guest house and Linnunlahti camping area which had been founded by the parent organization. The association also took part in marketing by e.g. participating in different fairs across the country. In 2001, the parent organization declared itself bankrupt, but the North Karelia association wasn’t

(12)

6

financially tied to the union. The association changed its name to Pohjois-Karjalan matkailu ry (North Karelia Tourism Association). (Pohjois-Karjalan Matkailu ry 2018.)

In 1993, the North Karelia Tourism Marketing Ltd (Pohjois-Karjalan MatkailuMarkkinointi Oy) was founded. Incorporation of municipal tourism offices was common in the 1990s (Boxberg et al. 2001).

This made their task challenging, as they had to simultaneously both look for funding and try to make money by selling tourism products (Boxberg et al. 2001).

In 2001 the North Karelia Tourism Marketing Ltd started to use Karelia Expert Oy as its auxiliary firm-name and in 2004, changed its name into Karelia Expert Tourism Services (Karelia Expert Matkailupalvelu Oy) and the following year, the nearby municipalities Lieksa and Ilomantsi tourism offices were merged to Karelia Expert. From 2010, the whole province’s tourism services have been marketed under the name VisitKarelia. In 2015 the company split into two companies, VisitKarelia Sales Oy, which is responsible for sales, and Karelia Expert Tourism Services Ltd, responsible for marketing, customer service and stakeholder collaboration (Karelia Expert Matkailupalvelu Oy). In 2018 the company gave up the sales function. The name VisitKarelia is used for marketing purposes and as the title of the website for visitors, and Karelia Expert in collaboration with stakeholders¹. At the same time, increasing the tourism demand of the region was set as the core function of the company. In addition, the company has three focuses, 1) developing trade relations, 2) marketing and 3) supervision of interests. Karelia Expert is currently funded by 14 municipalities, the 13 municipalities of the region of North Karelia and Heinävesi (Karelia Expert 2019). The city of Joensuu is the biggest shareholder with 45% of the shares. (Karelia Expert Matkailupalvelu Oy 2019).

The regional council of North Karelia (Pohjois-Karjalan Maakuntaliitto) sees a lot of potential in the region what comes to tourism but the capacity to serve tourists is insufficient (Pohjois-Karjalan Maakuntaliitto 2017). The themes of development in the new strategic programme 2018-2021 are 1) strengthening the clusters of tourism and international competitiveness and product offering, 2) strengthening tourism marketing and sales, 3) developing events and 4) developing nature and culture tourism (Pohjois-Karjalan Maakuntaliitto 2017, 40). Also, closer cooperation with Lakeland and VisitFinland as well as joint marketing efforts are stressed (Pohjois-Karjalan Maakuntaliitto 2017).

Other tourism-related topics of the programme include e.g. reinforcing the vitality of the region by enhancing the accessibility both to the region and within it, increasing international activities, such

1During finalizing this study, Karelia Expert Oy started to use the name VisitKarelia for all its operations. The website of the company was renewed as well and has own sections for visitors and tourism professionals. (VisitKarelia Oy 2020.)

(13)

7

as internationalization of local companies, and strengthening business to and from Russia (Pohjois- Karjalan Maakuntaliitto 2017).

1.4. Key concepts

Tourist destinations are physical or virtual spaces and networks of “independent service providers and resources”, offering visitors an integrated visiting experience (Beritelli & Bieger 2014, 25, Buhalis 2000, 98-99). In addition to tourism businesses, a destination comprises of public institutions and the local community and therefore destinations are interorganizational and interinstitutional networks (Beritelli 2011, Beritelli & Bieger 2014). For a sustainable development of the destination it must be managed as an entity (Beritelli & Bieger 2014).

Destination leadership is proactive planning and development of a destination and an influence relationship between the destination leaders and followers, destination stakeholders, managing the stakeholder collaboration of a destination to achieve a common goal (Beritelli & Bieger 2014, Haven- Tang & Jones 2012, Kozak et al. 2014).

Destination management is defined as planning, lobbying, marketing and service coordination (Laesser & Beritelli 2013). Management involves many practicalities starting from zoning and parking that are managed by local authorities, such as municipalities, cities, provinces or other governmental actors (Pike & Page 2014).

Destination governance is “setting and developing rules and mechanisms for a policy, as well as business strategies, by involving all the institutions and individuals” as well as resource allocation and exercise of control and co-ordination (Beritelli & Bieger 2014, 25-26, Beritelli et al. 2007, 96, Bramwell 2011, 459).

Power is a potential to influence, ability to control or influence another actor’s actions, the potential to have others to do “what they otherwise would not do”, but also observable behaviour (Stilling Blichfeldt et al. 2014). Power exists in relationships and defines the actors’ position within the network and hence, an actors’ power may vary in different groups (Nunkoo & Ramkissoon 2012).

Trust has been defined as “willingness to be vulnerable under conditions of risk and interdependence”, “willingness to rely on another”, having “confident, positive expectations” and having a positive attitude towards others (Rousseau et al. 1998, 394-395).

(14)

8

2. Destination leadership

The structure of governance answers to questions “how” and “why that way”, whereas leadership responses to “who” and “why those” (Beritelli & Bieger 2014, 26). Pechlaner et al. (2014, 3) have a slightly different angle: according to them, destination management & planning answers to the question “what” (“setting goals, implementing and optimizing their achievement”), destination governance to “how” (“setting boundaries and dealing with flows across the boundaries”) and destination leadership to “who” (“inspiring, encouraging and motivating human actors, setting values). Another differentiating factor between leadership, management and governance are the time frames: ideally, destination leadership focuses on long term, management and planning on medium to short term and governance on medium term (Pechlaner et al. 2014). Tuohino & Konu (2014) point out the context-specific nature of destination leadership based on their study and comparison of three different destinations. The results showed that the level of leadership among the stakeholders varied between the destinations (Tuohino & Konu 2014).

2.1. Destination development

Numerous factors affect a destination’s development. Exchange of information, use of synergies and coordination of action are supposed to positively affect destination development and are considered as the building blocks for innovation and a versatile competitive base. (Volgger & Pechlaner 2013.) Also, the stage of the destination according to the tourist area life cycle showcases a destination’s stage in development and is based on some key elements of destinations, namely “dynamism, process, carrying capacity, management and the spatial component” (Butler 2004). Tinsley & Lynch (2001), however, criticize the life cycle model for its static nature: the model doesn’t fully recognize the importance and impact of networks’ and relationships’ effect on a destination’s development. In addition, the life cycle model doesn’t recognize the importance of sudden changes and therefore, external factors and change-triggering factors must be considered in addition to the life cycle model (Tinsley & Lynch 2001).

Networks of stakeholders managed by DMOs as well as support from the local community have been discussed as essential factors in sustainable destination development (Matilainen et al. 2018, Volgger

& Pechlaner 2013). There are, however, differing results and conclusion about DMOs’ tasks within

(15)

9

a destination and in regard of destination development, and e.g. in Finnish context the DMOs’ roles have been found to vary greatly between different regions (Komppula 2016, Tuohino & Konu 2014).

EU funding has become an important resource of destination development in addition to national and regional policies (Lemmetyinen, 2010). The criteria of e.g. the EU structural funds emphasize cooperation, innovation and strengthening the local network (Bull 1999, Lemmetyinen 2010). However, there isn’t much research on the benefits of EU-funded rural tourism actions (Halkier 2010). Despite the fact that these projects have also had a positive impact on developing rural areas, studies of the success EU projects in Bornholm, Denmark and the Nordic countries have found challenges regarding these actions, such as unclarity of the goals of specific projects, general concentration of tourism to certain areas, the entrepreneurs’ lack of time to familiarize themselves with project forms and guidelines and lack of community spirit and strategy within the network. These studies also very much question whether or not the EU projects have brought benefit for tourism especially in rural areas. (Bohlin et al. 2016, Bull 1999, Halkier 2010.)

2.2. Destination management and governance

Through policy decisions, local governance rules and funding (Bramwell 2011, Pechlaner et al. 2014) governance affects e.g. the entrepreneurs’ freedom to act in the region. Effective governance is also seen as a prerequisite for sustainable tourism (Bramwell 2011). In Finnish context, there are laws regulating land use, fishing, hunting etc., and municipalities and councils of the Finnish regions e.g.

guide funding to different organizations and zoning of the areas. For example, Metsähallitus (the Finnish Forest and Park Services) is mainly funded by the state and many of its duties are related to the abovementioned laws regarding land use, hunting, fishing etc. (Metsähallitus 2019c). The Councils of the regions regulate which organizations receive funds from the European Regional Development Fund (Pohjois-Karjalan maakuntaliitto 2019). The regional Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment are also state-run and responsible for regional development tasks regarding e.g. business development, employment and local competitiveness in general (ELY keskus 2019). In North Karelia, for example Karelia Expert Matkailupalvelu Oy and Business Joensuu Oy are also important actors in the business field. Karelia Expert is owned jointly by 14 municipalities, and Business Joensuu is owned by the city of Joensuu, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu University Foundation and the vocational school Riveria (Business Joensuu Oy 2019, Karelia Expert Matkailupalvelu Oy 2019).

(16)

10

Destination management involves many practicalities, such as parking areas, waste management and maintenance of nature preservation areas. In Finnish context, these are managed by local authorities, e.g. municipalities, cities, provinces or other governmental actors such as Metsähallitus (Metsähallitus 2019). In the context of North Karelia, Metsähallitus and the regional council of North Karelia (Pohjois-Karjalan maakuntaliitto) are important government-run actors that have an impact on tourism of the region. Metsähallitus develops and maintains e.g. the national parks of the region, such as Koli and Petkeljärvi, is regularly involved in projects funded by the EU and rents out areas in the national parks for the companies operating in the area. (Metsähallitus 2019b, 2019d.)

Karelia Expert is currently funded and owned by 14 municipalities, the 13 municipalities of the region of North Karelia and Heinävesi (Karelia Expert 2019). The city of Joensuu is the biggest shareholder with 45% of the shares.

2.3. Leadership

Several researchers (Crevani et al. 2010, Crossman & Crossman 2011, Hogg et al. 2012, Silva 2016) acknowledge the relational and context-dependent nature of leadership. Crossman & Crossman (2011) argue that there is a consensus that leadership isn’t a top-down hierarchy between the leader and other members and that there can be several leaders in an organization. Silva (2016, 3-4) sums up by stating that 1) leadership is a process, not a personal quality, 2) interactive influence between the leader and the follower(s) is typical for the leadership process, 3) leadership process occurs in a given context, 4) it is required for the followers to accept the leader as one and finally, 5) the purpose is to achieve common goals set by the leader and the followers. According to Owusu-Bempah (2014, 47-48), several researchers have suggested that it is in fact the followers who essentially is a leader and what makes them a leader.

Owusu-Bempah (2014) points out that leadership is evaluated differently in different countries, and hence perceptions of effective leadership are different. For example, in some cultures, such as Russia or the USA, assertive and visible leaders are preferred, whereas in other cultures, e.g. Norway or Japan, less visible and relatively speaking leaders are considered as effective (Owusu-Bempah 2014, 48). The extent to which a leader represents the group stereotype, such as values, as well as the leader’s social attractiveness correlate positively with the person’s ideas being accepted more widely than those by others (Hogg 2001). In addition to local, regional, national and international contexts and the leader him-/herself, leadership is influenced by other contextual issues, multi-facetted relationships, communication, technologies, collaboration, goals, the followers, group membership

(17)

11

and identities and the organizational structure, among other things (Collinson 2014, Hogg 2001, Valente et al. 2014). A leader can in addition play a vital role in strengthening the whole group’s identity and salience as well as individuals’ identification with the group (Hogg et al. 2012).

2.4. Leadership in tourism destination context 2.4.1. Factors affecting destination leadership

Destination leadership has been described as interpreting, influencing and developing the services, strategy and innovation in its temporal and spatial context (Kozak et al. 2014, 170, Zehrer et al. 2014, 61). Beritelli & Bieger (2014, 26) bring forth the complexity of the term destination leadership and its implications, and therefore the networks, institutions and the local community of the destination must be considered as well as the different actors’ influence in order to gain understanding of leadership of a specific destination.

The leader of a destination may be a destination marketing/management organization, an individual stakeholder or company, or some other organization in the region (Hristov & Zehrer 2015). Many authors (e.g. Beritelli & Bieger 2014, Pechlaner et al. 2013, Zehrer et al. 2014) describe the ability and will to influence as core attributes of leadership. Hristov et al. (2018) and Kozak et al. (2014) point out that the leadership of a destination as well as who has a leading position are in addition influenced by the overall circumstances of the destination. As mentioned above, the stage of a destination according to the destination lifecycle model has an effect on destination development and leadership as well as on the roles of stakeholders (Komppula 2016).

Discussion and research specifically on destination leadership has been scarce, and most research regarding leadership focuses on firms (Pechlaner et al. 2013, Valente et al. 2014). The gap of research may be explained by e.g. the abstract nature of the concept of leadership, the different leading positions within a tourism network and the constant changes among the whole destination’s network of stakeholders (Valente et al. 2014).

Unifying a group of stakeholders and to overcome possible divisions within the network are described as the biggest challenge and task for destination leadership. Another challenge is that the leader often comes from one of the subgroups and is therefore an ingroup member for some, and an outgroup member for others. Leaders can, for example, through their words and actions exemplify the intergroup relational identity, as well as include all subgroups in co-operation and common discussions. (Hogg et al. 2012, 290-291.) Also, sharing resources, equal power division and collaboration are found to be central in sustainable destination leadership (Valente et al. 2014).

(18)

12

Zmys̀lony (2014) studies leadership in emerging destination networks. The central capabilities of leaders found in the literature were networking, analytical abilities, impact capability, economic potential and legitimacy (Zmys̀lony 2014). In addition, networking in less formal networks, creating a vision for the destination and influencing stakeholders by giving impulses to change have been highlighted (Zmys̀lony 2014). Zmys̀lony (2014) stresses the importance of legitimacy especially in the context of an emerging destination. The efficiency and legitimacy of a leader is based on reputation, other stakeholders’ opinions and attitudes (Zmys̀lony 2014). Zehrer et al. (2014) adds development of vision, development of strategies, destination management, influence on destination development, exchange of information and implementation of common projects to the list. Valente et al. (2014), in turn, found stakeholders to appreciate the local regional tourism organization’s ability to produce results, to mobilize followers, to build collaboration and innovation, to articulate and communicate goals and actions and to articulate roles and responsibilities.

In Finnish context, Komppula (2016) found in her study that destination leaders are individuals and not necessarily organizations or companies. It was also concluded, that the leading individual’s personality as well as a local sense of identity affect the cooperation within the network: a commitment to the development of the destination, active presence and a long history of living and/or working in the region were found to enhance a leader’s position (Komppula 2016). Tuohino & Konu (2014) studied three different tourism destinations and found destination leadership to be context dependent. Both studies also noted that usually the role of the local DMO has been stressed in studies regarding destination leadership (Komppula 2016, Tuohino & Konu 2014). The studies by Komppula (2016) and Tuohino & Konu (2014), however, found that the roles of the DMOs in the regions were not emphasized. Komppula (2016) found the DMO to, in addition to marketing, have a role of a discussion forum and according to Tuohino & Konu’s (2014) results the DMOs have a role in development but not necessarily as leaders. In fact, Tuohino & Konu (2014) found the local development companies to have an even bigger role. Contrary to these results, Lemmetyinen (2010) found the DMOs to have a significant role especially what comes to leading projects involving several tourism stakeholders. This setting was found to advance the general positive development, relationships between stakeholders as well as private and public actors and learning between stakeholders in tourism network (Lemmetyinen 2010).

Varying roles and degrees of power, economic success, the possession of knowledge and other resources as well as “dependence on long-term external support” are brought about as problematic issues around community-based tourism (Buffa et al. 2019, 251, Matilainen et al. 2018, 285, Reed, 1997, Saarinen 2006, 1130). Hence, establishing networks of collaboration is recommended strongly to operators within community-based tourism regions (Matilainen et al. 2018). Also, acknowledging

(19)

13

possible power inequalities and tensions among the operators is significant as it affects the collaboration and in the end the success of the destination (Matilainen et al. 2018). Beritelli et al.

(2016) and Buffa et al. (2019) even state that in community-based destinations, collaboration is quite difficult due to the complexity of relationships. Matilainen et al. (2018, 284) present three criteria that community-based tourism should fulfil: 1) having support of the local people, 2) the economic benefit should go to the community in or around the destination and 3) the activities should protect the cultural and natural environment. Forms of destination leadership suggested by researchers will be discussed in more detail in chapter 2.5.

Figure 1. Summary of factors affecting destination leadership, tasks and capabilities of destination leaders and challenges of destination leadership. Following Hogg et al. 2012, Kozak et al. 2014, 170, Pike & Page 2014, 203, Valente et al. 2014, 21, Zehrer et al. 2014, 61, Zmys̀lony 2014, 174, 176- 177.

Factors affecting destination

leadership

Stage of destination in tourist destination

lifecycle The roles of actors

and the clarity of the roles Existence of common goals

among actors Acceptance from

the followers Prototypicality of

the leader Personality and skills of the leader

Local figures, stories and knowledge

Tasks of destination

leaders

Development of vision Development of

strategies Destination management Influence on

destination development Exchange of

information Implementation of

common projects

Capabilities of destination

leaders

Networking Analytical capabilities Impact capability

(influence) Economic potential

Legitimacy Producing results

Mobilizing followers Articulating and

communicating goals and actions Articulating roles and responsibilities

Challenges of destination

leadership

Unclarity of different roles Lack of expertise in

the community Lack of social capital in the

community Lack of common

goals and vision Intergroup divisions within the

larger group Disapproval of the

leader Stakeholders' low

interest in destination development

(20)

14

Figure 1 visualizes the factors that affect destination leadership, tasks and capabilities of destination leaders as well as challenges of destination leadership discussed in this chapter (Hogg et al. 2012, Kozak et al. 2014, 170, Pike & Page 2014, 203, Valente et al. 2014, 21, Zehrer et al. 2014, 61, Zmys̀lony 2014, 174, 176-177). This figure and the factors will be utilized in the data analysis.

2.4.2. Stakeholders in a tourism destination

Tourist destinations are networks of autonomous but interdependent actors (Zmys̀lony 2014). These networks must be managed to ensure sustainable and successful development of the destination.

Varying and context-specific networks are a challenge for destination leadership but nevertheless, leadership is considered significant in sustainable tourism destination management and development.

(Beritelli & Bieger 2014, Valente et al. 2014, Valente et al. 2015.)

Sheehan et al. (2007) present a destination promotion triad with the destination marketing/management organization, hotels and city as the members of the triad. Hotels are usually big companies that bring both economic and operational value by e.g. enabling big groups to stay at the destination. The city or the public sector provides most financial resources. The relationship between the DMO and the city is of financial nature, the city and hotels have a performance relationship and the hotels, and the DMOs have an operational relationship. Other stakeholders that are not a part of the triad don’t contribute as much resources but benefit from the triad. They are also often more scattered in regard of their interests and goals. (Sheehan et al. 2007, 71-72.)

Due to differing business and political logics of individuals and organizations in the same destination, opinions on issues as important as what the main markets and segments of the destination are might differ significantly (Pike & Page 2014). Also, not all stakeholders are interested in the sustainability of the destination as a whole if their business is rather a lifestyle than merely business for them even though the competitiveness and the leadership of all stakeholders within the destination affects all tourism businesses of the area (Pike & Page 2014, 203). Therefore, when studying destination leadership, one shouldn’t only focus on the biggest organizations; stakeholders include local businesses and their networks, public institutions and organizations, non-profit organizations as well as the local community. (Beritelli & Bieger 2014.) Volgger & Pechlaner (2014) also point out that actors are needed who can recognize and articulate common goals and strategies. Kozak et al. (2014), in turn, highlight locality as the basis for destination leadership, meaning local figures, knowledge and stories.

(21)

15

2.4.3. Destination marketing/management organizations

In this study, a DMO is understood as a destination marketing organization (Buffa et al. 2019). The DMO in North Karelia, Karelia Expert Tourism Services, describes its function as advancing the growth of tourism demand in the region (Karelia Expert 2019). As mentioned above, the organization is currently funded and owned by altogether 14 municipalities, Joensuu being the biggest shareholder with 45 % (Karelia Expert 2019).

DMOs are described by Sheehan et al. (2007, 64) as promoters of tourism within their destination “in a way that enhances the positive effects of tourism in the long run or maximizes competitiveness in a sustainable manner”. DMOs depend greatly on the resources of other stakeholders in a destination and must not only co-operate with the tourism stakeholders but also with the local government (Sheehan et al. 2007). Sheehan et al. (2007) conclude that since every destination is unique with e.g.

its structural and natural resources as well as network of organizations and stakeholders, there is no universal pattern as to how destinations function.

According to Sheehan et al. (2007, 71), important factors affecting the DMOs’ relationships with stakeholders are e.g. “personal relationships, communication, and concerns over special interests”.

Communication not only helps in building the promotion but also helps to avoid misunderstandings and surprises (Sheehan et al. 2007). In addition to personal relationships with the primary stakeholder organizations and communication, also managing the stakeholders’ perceptions and creating transparency of the DMO were found important (Sheehan et al. 2007). Pike & Page (2014) point out that DMOs may face scrutiny and pressure from their funding sources regarding performance.

As brought about above regarding destination leadership, studies in the Finnish context reveal that the roles of the DMOs in destinations under study were not emphasized in regard of leadership (Komppula 2016, Tuohino & Konu 2014). The DMOs were found to either have a role in marketing or as a discussion forum (Komppula 2016, Tuohino & Konu 2014). According to the results by Tuohino & Konu (2014, 211) the DMOs had a marketing function and no role in management of the region. In regard of projects, Lemmetyinen (2010) found DMOs to have a significant role in organizing projects and through that, advancing general collaboration and learning between different stakeholders.

According to Pike & Page (2013), a DMO can only operate within the boundaries of the local government’s management regarding e.g. zoning, land use and logistics and has little influence over the tourist experience and the local tourism companies’ operations. Hence, the more organizations

(22)

16

and bodies control and manage a region, the more complicated it is to direct the region’s development from a specific field’s point of view (Pike & Page 2013.)

2.4.4. Relationships and collaboration within tourism networks

The role of individual figures, the interdependence of different stakeholders as well as the nature of the relationships were already brought about above (e.g. Beritelli & Bieger 2014, Kozak et al. 2014, Zmys̀lony 2014). The behaviour, actions and the multiple relationships that an individual has in the community affect not only the person him-/herself but also the cooperation that he/she is involved in and the success of the area (Beritelli 2011b). The goal of creating a comprehensive tourism product is challenged by different goals, resources and personalities of the stakeholders, strength and activeness of stakeholder coordination and power imbalances (Zmys̀lony 2014). In order to compete on a destination level, the stakeholders of a destination should find a balance in competing and cooperating with each other (Zmys̀lony 2014).

Networks between companies have been recommended especially for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) also to advance learning (Florén & Tell 2003, Lemmetyinen 2010). Trust consisting of reciprocity, capacity for new perspectives and transparency in communication, are presented as both prerequisites for interorganizational learning and elements that sustain the process of learning (Florén & Tell 2003). In addition to sharing knowledge, collaboration among firms can lead to sharing resources (Ahuja 2000). Hence, Tuohino & Konu (2014) discuss coopetition, wherein stakeholders might simultaneously compete e.g. in gaining customers, but co-operate e.g. in marketing. These kinds of arrangements both save all participating stakeholders’ resources and the same time benefit them (Tuohino & Konu 2014).

Accoding to Ahuja (2000), interorganizational networks not only affect the position of a company or other stakeholders in the network, it also influences the companies’ success and outcomes. A company’s own goals are decisive in what kind of a network would be optimal, and what kind of social capital would be useful (Ahuja 2000).

Stilling Blichfeldt et al. (2014) note that regarding collaboration, unity is often stressed in literature, even though that is not always the case. Different priorities and processes (Beritelli 2011a) and lack of communication, network skills, clear mutual goals and social capital weaken collaboration (Ahuja 2000, Beritelli 2011a, van der Zee & Vanneste 2015).

In order for collaborative actions to take place and succeed, several aspects must be fulfilled. All parties should recognize the shared problem(s) and interdependence, acknowledge a common goal

(23)

17

and the roles of each stakeholder and communicate clearly. (Czakon & Czernek, 2016, Czernek 2013, van der Zee & Vanneste 2015.) Czakon & Czernek (2016) also bring about the meaning of trust and reciprocity in partner selection. On the other hand, a hierarchical network with one stakeholder having a dominant position over others may hinder the formation of trust and formation of functional collaboration (van der Zee & Vanneste 2015).

According to Lemmetyinen (2010), tourism has been found to move in future towards increased networking and cooperation. This requires, though, a general understanding that companies in a destination are not competing against each other but against companies in other destinations (Lemmetyinen 2010). Lemmetyinen (2010) stresses that the way innovation is viewed has changed.

In addition to product development, joint creation of value occurs between the tourism operators and consumers and, also between different tourism operators themselves (Lemmetyinen 2010).

2.5. Forms of destination leadership 2.5.1. Distributed/shared leadership

Distributed/shared leadership has been studied by several authors (Benson & Blackman 2011, Hristov et al. 2018, Valente et al. 2014). According to this form of leadership, an individual with leadership abilities is not necessarily needed, but a set of people performing leadership and sharing decision-making (Valente et al. 2014). One person or organization may be in a significant role when it comes to a single decision or policy formulation but distributed/shared leadership stresses leadership as a process rather than individual decisions (Valente et al. 2014). Hence, same stakeholders can in different times act as leaders or as followers depending on the situation at hand.

Trust is found to be vital in shared leadership (Benson & Blackman 2011, 1147).

Hristov et al. (2018) point out that shared leadership may be beneficial in a situation where a destination management organization no longer has the resources to lead the destination. It has also been argued that a public sector organization is not the best alternative to lead a destination, as it might prefer cooperation with companies rather than e.g. non-profit organizations (Valente et al.

2014). On the other hand, a public sector organization might be more focused than the more

“fragmented private sector” (Valente et al. 2014, 13).

The success of distributed leadership depends greatly on how leadership is distributed, for what purpose and who benefits from it (Hristov et al. 2018). In practice it is often difficult to define the lines of shared leadership, and how it is shared (Valente et al. 2014). Interests of different stakeholders

(24)

18

also vary during different times and might be inconsistent or controversial in comparison to the goals of other stakeholders (Valente et al. 2014). In addition, shared interests or the development and benefit of the whole region may not be enough to motivate a stakeholder to develop their services and products into a certain direction (Valente et al. 2014).

According to Benson & Blackman’s (2011) study on distributed leadership within tourism businesses, stakeholders should proactively recognise the present skills, focuses of development and prospective collaborative actions. In addition, the more fragmented and distributed cooperation is, the more challenging e.g. communication becomes which may cause misunderstandings (Benson & Blackman 2011).

2.5.2. Systemic leadership

Systemic leadership aims to explain and describe the ability to “influence organizations and systems in a dynamic and complex environment” and is also a typical form of leadership at tourist destinations (Beritelli & Bieger 2014, 27). Systemic leadership builds on the whole community, allowing for individuals to be creative, to take action and the roles of leaders and followers to alternate (Beritelli

& Bieger 2014). In this approach, focus is not only on individuals or on intra-organizational issues;

more than those, it stresses the inter-organizational perspective. Systemic leadership can therefore be useful in understanding destinations that consist of several stakeholders with different and varying interests but who still influence each other and, in the end, aim to develop the destination. (Beritelli

& Bieger 2014.)

The biggest difference between systemic and shared leadership is that in systemic leadership seeking a common consensus is not desired; it is acknowledged and accepted that the stakeholders have different opinions and goals. Hence, systemic leadership aims at synergetic decision-making and actions (Beritelli & Bieger 2014.). Therefore, systemic leadership flourishes best in a community built on trust, mutual recognition, effective communication and where individuals have the freedom to act, influence and seize opportunities (Beritelli & Bieger 2014).

2.5.3. Network approach

In addition to systemic and shared leadership, a network approach has been proposed as a potential tool for destination leadership and management (van der Zee et al. 2017). Lemmetyinen & Go (2008)

(25)

19

study coordination of tourism networks in two destinations, one in Finland and one in Sweden, and conclude successful coordination to advance both value creation and creation of a brand. Success factors of network cooperation were concluded to be developing roles, “orchestrating and visioning the network” so that the local brand is strengthened, creation of dialogue, reciprocal learning and knowledge exchange and, finally, a strong ability for cooperation among the stakeholders (Lemmetyinen & Go 2008, 39). The latter factor is decisive in ensuring the continuation and success of the network (Lemmetyinen & Go 2008). According to van der Zee et al. (2017), in a situation where a power-based managing or leading within a destination network is not possible, management could be pursued by formation of relationships based on trust and reciprocity as well as inclusive decision-making.

All in all, managing the tourism network is strongly suggested due to differences between stakeholders as well as geographical distances (van der Zee et al. 2017). Having interviewed network managers in their study, van der Zee et al. (2017) concluded that the lack of active formation of personal relationships and trust had led to less sustainable formations of networks. Several aspects affecting the success of a network approach are brought about. Firstly, using the term ‘network’ has become fashionable and that is a reason for many to use it. Also, communication within the network should be bidirectional and constant in order to engage the stakeholders. Thirdly, it is pointed out that network managers may face a significant amount of pressure and expectations and hence, it’s difficult to balance between building personal relationships and trust and maintaining fairness and impartiality.

(Van der Zee et al. 2017.)

3. Power and trust

Power and trust are stated to be equally important in all social exchange relationships and are crucial to human cooperation (Nunkoo & Ramkissoon 2012, Öberg & Svensson 2010). Power and trust

“complement one another to predict social actors’ behaviors across different contexts and situations”

(Nunkoo & Ramkissoon 2012, 1000). The quality of relationships, the positions of stakeholders and linkages to each other, as well as the formation of groups are contexts involving issues of power and trust (Beritelli & Laesser 2011, Nunkoo & Gursoy 2016). The concepts are significant in different theories such as social exchange theory (SET), which studies social interactions and e.g. rewards and costs in relationships, and how they affect the interaction (Nunkoo & Ramkissoon 2012, 998).

(26)

20 3.1. What is power?

Power is defined as observable behaviour and the “extent to which one can get others to do what they would otherwise not do” (Dahl 1957), as potential influence and ability to control or influence another actor’s actions (Emerson 1962). Power has also been stated to be context-specific and a potential that can be activated (Stilling Blichfeldt et al. 2014, 77, 83).

According to several researchers (e.g. Beritelli & Laesser 2011, Collinson 2005, Foucault 1980, Nunkoo & Gursoy 2016, Nunkoo & Ramkissoon 2012), power exists in relationships and actions and defines the actors’ positions within the network. Therefore, the focus shouldn’t be on the stakeholder who has the power but rather on the effects and the subject of power. It is emphasized that power is not a characteristic of an individual but of a relationship. (Foucault 1980, Stilling Blichfeldt et al.

2014.) Power has also been characterized as an actor(s) being dependent on another actor (Nunkoo

& Ramkissoon 2012).

According to Foucault (1978, 90, 119), power is often seen as something negative, as something that represses, though it can also produce results, discourse, knowledge or some other type of productivity.

The most effective use of power has been stated to be preventing conflicts from arising (Stilling Blichfeldt et al. 2014). Power occurs also when another actor is empowered to act in the other actor name (Stilling Blichfeldt et al. 2014).

Several categorizations and definitions have been made of the types, bases and sources of power. In order to gain power, one must possess a resource that enhances power (Beritelli & Laesser 2011, Saito & Ruhanen 2017). In order to gain power, a stakeholder must possess a resource of power (Beritelli & Laesser 2011, Nunkoo & Ramkissoon 2012, Saito & Ruhanen 2017). Nunkoo &

Ramkissoon (2012, 1004) define an operator’s power as “a function of resources”. Power inequalities and inequal division of resources can cause distrust or hinder the forming of trust (Nunkoo &

Ramkissoon 2012). On the other hand, power may foster trust as it influences an operator’s perception and evaluation of the prospective business partner, cooperation and the outcomes of possible cooperation (Nunkoo & Ramkissoon 2012).

Beritelli & Laesser (2011, 1302) study power dimensions in a tourism network and divide them into 1) hierarchical, 2) knowledge, 3) process power; an actor’s position in a process or mechanism and 4) assets or resources. In addition to one’s position in a network, also the social context, the socially constructed attitudes and perceptions, affect perceptions of a stakeholder (Beritelli & Laesser 2011).

Stilling Blichfeldt et al. (2014, 79) divide power bases into 1) reward referring to a perception that a stakeholder is able reward others with e.g. awareness, 2) coercive; the perception by others that a

(27)

21

stakeholder is able to mediate punishments or to persuade stakeholders to e.g. participate in a joint operation, 3) legitimate, meaning the acceptance of other stakeholders, 4) referent meaning the level of identification with e.g. another stakeholder’s goals and 5) expert power. Saito & Ruhanen (2017) follow the typology of Stilling Blichfeldt et al. (2014), whereas Nunkoo & Ramkissoon (2012, 1004) define these resources in a broader way and name e.g. economic, social, cultural and environmental resources.

In addition to the different bases and types of power, temporal and contextual factors need to be emphasized. In a destination, multiple bases of power may exist that increase the power of several actors, but it is also possible that the power is in the possession of one stakeholder (Stilling Blichfeldt et al. 2014.) For example, project money may temporarily bring power to the organization that has received funding and has therefore the power to involve other stakeholders in the project or to decide about the content of the project (Blichfeldt et al. 2014).

As already brought about above, tourism research has often emphasized unity, collaboration and romanticized interactions and relations in tourism networks, even though the levels of power and therefore abilities to influence may vary significantly among stakeholders (Stilling Blichfeldt et al.

2014, Saito & Ruhanen 2017). Several researchers (e.g. Bowen et al. 2017, 726, Nunkoo &

Ramkissoon 2012, 1000, 1017, Öberg & Svensson 2010, 158) argue that the concepts of power and trust should be studied jointly in tourism communities and tourism development. Including power in the research may reveal more insights about the complexity of relationships in destinations as well as the origins of influence (Stilling Blichfeldt et al. 2014).

(28)

22

Figure 2. Sources of power. Following Beritelli & Laesser 2011, Nunkoo & Ramkissoon 2012, Saito

& Ruhanen 2017, Stilling Blichfeldt et al. 2014.

In figure 2, different sources of power are summarized following Beritelli & Laesser (2011), Nunkoo

& Ramkissoon (2012), Saito & Ruhanen (2017), Stilling Blichfeldt et al. (2014). The summary is utilized in the data analysis.

3.2. What is trust?

3.2.1. Definitions of trust

Trust, as well as power, is embedded in social relationships, and is created, developed and maintained through regular interaction (McTiernan et al. 2019). Trust consists of psychological experiences of either an individual, a group or an organization and it can be viewed as the cause, effect or an effect for a relationship (Rousseau et al. 1998). Predictability and whether or not the predictions are realized, vulnerability, interdependence and taking risks are strongly linked with trust (Cozzolino 2011, Czernek 2013, McTiernan et al. 2019, Rousseau et al. 1998). Hence, trust is predictability of and/or expectation towards an action or an event, when the occurrence of the action or event is dependent

Sources of power

Economic

Financial capital Infrastructure Organization size

Social resources

Reputation, past services Charisma Socioeconomic

status Moral worth

Legitimacy

Human capital / expert

Expertise Information

Experience Intelligence Information Ability to lead

Other sources

Reward based Coercive/force

Referent Process power Persuasion/Manipulat

ion