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

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

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

Table of contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Background and research gap ................................................................................................ 1

1.2. Purpose of the study .............................................................................................................. 3 1.3. Case North Karelia ................................................................................................................ 4

1.3.1. North Karelia as a tourism region .................................................................................. 4 1.3.2. Development of the regional tourism organization........................................................ 5

1.4. Key concepts ......................................................................................................................... 7

2. Destination leadership .................................................................................................................. 8 2.1. Destination development ....................................................................................................... 8

2.2. Destination management and governance ............................................................................. 9 2.3. Leadership ........................................................................................................................... 10 2.4. Leadership in tourism destination context........................................................................... 11

2.4.1. Factors affecting destination leadership ....................................................................... 11 2.4.2. Stakeholders in a tourism destination .......................................................................... 14

2.4.4. Relationships and collaboration within tourism networks ........................................... 16 2.5. Forms of destination leadership .......................................................................................... 17

2.5.1. Distributed/shared leadership ....................................................................................... 17 2.5.2. Systemic leadership...................................................................................................... 18 2.5.3. Network approach ........................................................................................................ 18

3. Power and trust ........................................................................................................................... 19

3.1. What is power? .................................................................................................................... 20 3.2. What is trust? ....................................................................................................................... 22

3.2.1. Definitions of trust ....................................................................................................... 22

3.2.2. Sources of trust............................................................................................................. 23 3.2.3. Knowledge exchange and social capital within networks ........................................... 25

4. Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 25

4.1. Case study method............................................................................................................... 26

4.2. Methods of data collection and analysis.............................................................................. 27 4.2.1. Data collection ............................................................................................................. 27

4.2.2. Data analysis ................................................................................................................ 29

5. Results and analysis .................................................................................................................... 30 5.1. Current situation of the tourism region ............................................................................... 30

5.1.1. The stakeholders’ views on the current situation ......................................................... 30 5.1.2. Current actions and mission of the DMO .................................................................... 32

5.2. Leadership within the network ............................................................................................ 33 5.2.1. What is regarded as leadership? ................................................................................... 33 5.2.2. How is leadership perceived to appear in the network? ............................................... 38

5.3. Components of influence and the most influential stakeholders ......................................... 39 5.3.1. The roles of the most influential stakeholders ............................................................. 39

5.3.2. Components of influence ............................................................................................. 48 5.4. Collaboration within the tourism network........................................................................... 52

5.4.1. Collaboration among the entrepreneurs ....................................................................... 52 5.4.2. General collaboration ................................................................................................... 53

5.5. Trust in collaboration and factors affecting the formation of trust ..................................... 54 5.5.1. What enhances trust in collaboration? ......................................................................... 55 5.5.2. Factors affecting trust and collaboration negatively .................................................... 60

5.5.3. Networks ...................................................................................................................... 62 5.5.4. Projects ......................................................................................................................... 64

6. Discussion & main findings........................................................................................................ 66

6.1. Main findings ...................................................................................................................... 66 6.1.1. Destination leadership .................................................................................................. 67 6.1.2. Influence and influential stakeholders in the region .................................................... 68

6.1.3. The effect of trust on cooperation and factors affecting trust ...................................... 70

7. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 71 7.1. Theoretical conclusions ....................................................................................................... 71 7.2. Managerial conclusions ....................................................................................................... 73 7.3. Evaluation of the study and future research ........................................................................ 76

7.3.1. Evaluation of the study ................................................................................................ 76

7.3.2. Suggestions for future research .................................................................................... 77

8. References ................................................................................................................................... 78

List of tables

Table 1. List of interviewees. (p. 28)

Table 2. Components of destination leadership. (p. 34)

Table 3. The most influential tourism stakeholders in the region according to the interviewees. (p. 39)

Table 4. Sources of influence linked to different stakeholders by interviewees. (p. 41)

Table 5. Sources of power. (p. 48)

Table 6. Factors affecting trust and the formation of trust. (p. 56)

Table 7. Factors affecting trust and the formation of trust negatively. (p. 61)

List of figures

Figure 1. Summary of factors affecting destination leadership, tasks and capabilities of destination

leaders and challenges of destination leadership. (p. 13)

Figure 2. Sources of power. (p. 22)

Figure 3. Sources of trust. (p. 24)

Figure 4. Factors affecting destination development. (p. 75)

Appendices

Appendix 1. Outline of interview questions. (p. 85)

Appendix 2. List of original citations in Finnish. (p. 86)

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

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).

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?

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

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 19th 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

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

1 During 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.)

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).

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

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 co-

operation, 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).

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

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).

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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)

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).

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

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).

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

23

on another party (Cozzolino 2011, 303). As brought about above, trust is crucial in interpersonal

relationships, but trust-based expectations can be considered relevant more broadly in all social

systems (Cozzolino 2011). A high level of trust may, for example, lead to collaboration, success in

negotiations and solving conflicts (Rousseau et al. 1998). Feelings play an important role in the

development of trust: positive feelings increase trustworthiness, and negative feelings resulting from

the interaction lead to distrust (Cozzolino 2011). An important notion, therefore, is that trust is very

fragile in that it can be destroyed very quickly (McTiernan et al. 2019).

In the context of collaboration between organizations, being able to trust the other party to meet their

obligations is crucial as e.g. knowledge transfer is based on social exchange (McTiernan et al. 2019).

In addition, interpersonal trust has been found to increase commitment, which, in turn, increases

interorganizational commitment (Pesämaa & Hair 2008, Tuohinen & Konu 2014). Those with a large

network have a good chance of finding partners for collaboration, and a network can also help to gain

information about a potential partner’s trustworthiness (Dyer & Singh 1998). Dyer & Singh (1998)

suggest that instead of contracts or monitoring, trust should become the mechanism to cope with

tensions in collaboration. Trust can be enhanced e.g. by rewarding the partner, recognizing and

encouraging partners’ contributions and by facilitating regular contact to individuals and

organizations that can be considered as peers or partners (McTiernan et al. 2019).

3.2.2. Sources of trust

Several bases of trust and factors affecting the development of trust have been differentiated

(McTiernan et al. 2019, Rousseau et al. 1998). These include integrity and moral character of the

trustee, motives and intentions, consistency of behaviour, openness or accessibility to e.g. new ideas,

business sense, discreetness, interpersonal competence, functional competence as in specific task

skills and judgement for sound decisions (McTiernan et al. 2019, 305-306). To continue the list,

predictability, availability (physical presence), competence, reliability, concern (judgement of

empathy from both parties’ perspectives), perceived expertise, benevolence/altruism/loyalty and

reputation, especially in regard of previous interactions with others, have also been found to impact

the formation of trust (McTiernan et al. 2019, 305-306, Rousseau et al. 1998, 396-397).

Trust among collaborating partners can be reduced e.g. by lack of collaboration experience, an

inadequate time frame for the project or high levels of conflict or prejudice (McTiernan et al. 2019).

Czernek (2013) studies determinants of tourism cooperation in Poland and note that the topic has only

rarely been the focus of research. Their study is very much embedded in Polish society and history

24

and is therefore difficult to generalize, but, trust and knowing one’s potential partner for cooperation

were found crucial and, an important further notion was that the “absence [of trust] often made it

impossible to even consider cooperation.” (Czernek 2013, 97).

Knowledge exchange was discussed in the literature as an important factor as both a source of power

and a result of trust among parties (Beritelli & Bieger 2011, McTiernan et al. 2019). Social capital,

in addition, is in best case the result of mutual trust and commitment to cooperation (Maak 2007).

These concepts will be discussed in the following chapters as they are closely related to trust and its

effect.

Figure 3. Sources of trust. Following McTiernan et al. 2019, 305-306 & Rousseau et al. 1998, 396-

397.

Figure 3 displays sources of trust as discussed in this chapter (McTiernan et al. 2019, 305-306 and

Rousseau et al. 1998, 396-397). This figure will as well be utilized in the data analysis of this study.

Sources of trust

Skills and competences

Business sense

Interpersonal

competence

Functional

competence and

knowledge

Experience on

collaboration

Characteristics

Integrity, motives

and moral character

Openness and

accessibility

Discreetness

Judgment

Predictability

Benevolence /

altruism

Actions

Reputation (based on

previous actions and

interaction)

Consistency of

behaviour

(Physical) availability

Contextual issues

Time frame for the project

Resources at hand

Existence of a contract

25

3.2.3. Knowledge exchange and social capital within networks

The positive correlation between trust and knowledge sharing is discussed by McTiernan et al. (2019),

who state trust to affect relationships, co-operation and knowledge exchange in collaboration.

Achieving and maintaining successful and sustainable knowledge exchange is often difficult in

practice, and therefore tourism organizations should include knowledge transfer within collaborations

as a vital component (McTiernan et al. 2019). Lemmetyinen (2010) stresses the aspect of learning in

networks of three or more stakeholders: with several participants, the discussion and hence the

learning is more multidimensional. Knowledge has also been found a driver of influence alongside

with process power (Beritelli & Laesser 2011).

Social capital is defined as stakeholder engagement and dialogue, characteristics that make people

act collectively in their networks, investment in those relationships where a return of the investment

is expected. Social capital may in best case advance the creation of trust, resonance and social capital

among the stakeholders. (Maak 2007.) Burt (2000, 347) views social capital as a critical issue and

describes it as “the contextual complement to human capital”. A further central aspect is that social

capital should not only foster trustful relationships among stakeholders, but it should contribute to a

common business vision (Maak 2007).

Maak (2007) raises several central questions regarding the opportunities of social capital; is there

enough trust, openness, equality and flexibility in the relationships, are some stakeholders more

dominant, others dependent, distant or dormant. The opposite of social capital is described as

“enforced trust”, in which case stakeholders are used for instrumental reasons rather than contacted

for sustainable co-operation (Maak 2007, 338).

The value and benefits of social capital might include connections, information, knowledge and

achieving mutual goals concerning e.g. development of the business. The role of a leader of tourism

networks is suggested to be the ability to mobilize and engage stakeholders in collaboration and to

make sure that the network is coherent with stakeholder expectations. These, in turn, would result in

value networks of stakeholders, increased social capital and sustainable business. (Maak 2007.)

4. Methodology

As brought about above, studying the effects and formation of power and trust within a tourism

network, knowledge sharing, the relational nature of destination leadership and how all these aspects

26

affect collaboration have been recommended by several researchers (Beritelli & Laesser 2011,

McTiernan et al. 2019, Reed 1997, Saito & Ruhanen 2017). Hence, the purpose of this research is to

gain understanding about how leadership and influence are formed within the tourism network in

North Karelia, and how power, trust and influence appear within the network. As has been brought

about above, each destination is unique with its own contextual factors and therefore, the aim of this

research is not to provide generalizable information but to gain understanding of the topic specifically

in North Karelia. Different stakeholders are interviewed for this research who are currently or have

been somehow involved in tourism field in North Karelia, either as entrepreneurs or in some

organization.

Conger (1998, 107-108) sees qualitative research as essential for leadership studies and state that

qualitative analyses offer context specific as well as means to include behavioural, interpersonal,

organizational and environmental aspects of leadership into the study. According to Conger (1998),

quantitative methods wouldn’t be sufficient to consider the multiple levels of leadership, its dynamic

nature and changes e.g. in structures of the organization or network. Qualitative analyses are also

recommended by McTiernan et al. (2019): research explaining the effects of trust on building

relationships and collaboration within a network would enable stakeholders to invest resources in a

meaningful way.

4.1. Case study method

This study is an intensive case study research which aims at understanding the topic in the given

context, namely the region of North Karelia. An intensive case study focuses on understanding and

exploring the case from the inside, from the perspectives of the participants. Therefore, the main

interest is the case itself and its narrative, and not necessarily to produce generalizable information.

(Eriksson & Kovalainen 2008.)

The data is collected by semi-structured theme interviews, presented in the analysis and, finally,

reflected to the theory and literature in the discussion. Data collection and analysis will be discussed

in more detail in the following chapters.

27

4.2. Methods of data collection and analysis

4.2.1. Data collection

Non-probability sampling, namely purposive sampling, was chosen as a method to choose the

interviewees for the study (Farquhar 2012). Purposive sampling was chosen since the objective was

to find interviewees who have sufficient knowledge and experience of the tourism field and network

in the region. A subjective method such as purposive sampling allows the choice of a representative

sample (Battaglia, 2008). The selection of interviewees was discussed together with the supervisor of

the thesis, professor Komppula.

The data for this research was collected by means of semi-structured interviews. As mentioned above,

purposive and snowball sampling were utilized when choosing the interviewees. The potential

interviewees were first contacted via e-mail. Some of them replied quite quickly, and the rest were

reached by a phone call. In the e-mail a few potential dates were proposed, from which the

interviewees could choose a suitable date or alternatively suggest another date.

Altogether 12 interviews were done. 5 interviews were conducted in North Karelia according to what

suited the informants best, and the rest were interviewed on the phone. The first informant was

interviewed already 16th September 2019, when other informants were interviewed between 4th

October and 2nd of December 2019. All interviews were recorded and later transcribed. For

transcribing, the software Express Scribe was utilized.

5 interviewees are CEOs and/or owners of a tourism company in the region, 6 are or have been in

some other way involved in tourism field and the 12th interviewee is the CEO of the regional DMO,

Karelia Expert Oy. The interviewees are listed in table 1 below. In the analysis, the entrepreneurs will

be referred to with a code with the letter “E”, and the other stakeholders with a code with the letter

“A”.

28

Table 1. List of interviewees.

Age Gender Tourism company

CEO (E) / Other

stakeholder (A)

Position and experience from tourism field

1. 35-40 Female E1 Almost 20 years of experience from the field.

CEO and owner of a tourism company

2. 55-60 Female E2 25 experience from tourism field. Co-founder

and owner of a tourism company

3. 35-40 Male E3 5 years of experience from the field. Owner

of a tourism company

4. 35-40 Female E4 Owner and CEO of a tourism company for 3

years

5. 55-60 Female E5 Owner and CEO of a tourism company. 30

years of experience from the field

6. 60-65 Male A1 Almost 30 years of experience in different

central organizations and projects within

tourism field

7. 50-55 Male A2 About 15 years of experience in a central

organization

8. 50-55 Male A3 Has previously been occupied in central

organizations for about 30 years

9. 55-60 Female A4 Has previously been occupied for about 30 in

different central organizations in the region

10. 50-55 Female A5 Has previously been occupied for about 30 in

a central organization in the region

11. 40-45 Male A6 About 6 years of experience in a central

organization in the region

12. 35-40 Male CEO of the DMO CEO of Karelia Expert Oy since 2016

The outline of research questions is included in the appendices (Appendix 1.). The interviewees were

first asked about their position and experience in the region’s tourism business. The first theme was

the interviewees’ views on how leadership appears in the tourism network and what they consider the

most important components of destination leadership. The second theme was influence, namely, what

stakeholders the interviewees consider as most influential and what components they consider as

increasing a stakeholder’s influence. The third theme was collaboration and trust. The interviewees

were asked about factors that enhance collaboration and how they perceive trust to affect

collaboration.

29

4.2.2. Data analysis

Thematic analysis method was utilized for data analysis. Thematic analysis is recommended as a

useful method for identifying, organizing and analysing themes from the data (Nowell et al. 2017).

By means of thematic analysis, potential similarities and differences can be detected (Nowell et al.

2017). Based on the outline of interview questions, the data was organized according to themes.

Despite the pre-formulated interview questions, the interviewees could express additional thoughts.

Hence, themes occurred that weren’t a part of the original research plan. This way, however, valuable

insights were gained related to the topic. Projects, for instance, discussed alongside with other themes

in the following chapter 5, came about as a repetitive theme in several interviews.

The results of the study will be presented in the following chapter. For a general overview, the

interviewees’ views on the current situation of tourism in North Karelia are presented in chapter 5.1.

As brought about above, the DMO of the region has undergone some changes in the recent years and

therefore, the DMO’s CEO was interviewed in order to gain a comprehensive view on the DMO’s

current mission and actions. In chapter 6, the results are reflected to the theory presented in the

beginning of the study. Lastly, in the conclusion in chapter 7, the central results are summarized, the

study is evaluated and some managerial implications as well as suggestions for future research are

discussed.

Several tourism associations operate in the region of which the abovementioned Pohjois-Karjalan

matkailu ry, Koli ry (Koli Tourism Association) and Ilomantsin Matkailuyhdistys (Ilomantsi Tourism

Association) came about in the interviews. The associations will be referred to as tourism associations

in this study as they focus on similar actions. Similarly, several sales companies, which sell tours and

other tourism products in the region, came about in the interviews: Villi Pohjola Oy (the Wild Nordic),

Äksyt Ämmät Oy, Finland Travel Company and Pohjolan Matkat. Hence, in this study, all sales

companies will be referred to jointly as sales companies. Thirdly, of the development companies

operating in the region, Business Joensuu Oy, Keski-Karjalan Kehitysyhtiö Oy KETI (Central Karelia

development company Keti Ltd) and Pielisen Karjalan Kehittämiskeskus Oy PIKES (Pielinen Karelia

Development Center Ltd) came about in the interviews and will as well be referred to jointly as

development companies as their tasks are similar.

The translations of citations from the interviews have been translated by the author of this study. The

original citations are listed in appendix 2.

30

5. Results and analysis

5.1. Current situation of the tourism region

5.1.1. The stakeholders’ views on the current situation

Most interviewees found the tourism network scattered at the moment. Two interviewees viewed the

current development and direction as positive and found no issues. However, other interviewees

found that all stakeholders should be brought together, the roles should be clarified, the entrepreneurs

should be supported by the different organizations and the pace of decision-making should speed up

in order to develop the region’s tourism.

A1 stresses that the roles of the different stakeholders should be clearly defined so that the resources

can be used more effectively, and all organizations could focus on their task:

”The more stakeholders are involved, the more complex the field becomes. - - Because

these fundings in a way create prerequisites for the organizations’ operation,

stakeholders apply for funding kind of for themselves. Then, the collaboration and

division of roles isn’t that good.” (A1) (Citation 1.)

E1 and A5 agree in that the region isn’t so unified anymore which isn’t seen as a good direction. A5,

similarly as A1, sees the network as scattered where different stakeholders are focusing on their own

activities and visibility.

“At some point it was very much about the whole North Karelia and we were only

talking about North Karelia, but now, things have regionalized again which makes no

sense.” (E1) (Citation 2.)

Projects, organized by different stakeholders, came about in all interviews. For clarity, all projects

will simply be referred to as projects in this study. A5, for instance, pointed out that in addition to

different kinds of stakeholders in the tourism field, the diverse projects made the field even more

scattered and unclear.

“If I remember correctly, by 2010 we may have had about forty tourism-related

projects in the region. - - I think there has been quite a struggle regarding the focus

and the thing that we are doing, regarding who does what and with what resources.”

(A5) (Citation 3.)

A5 also found the cooperation without project funding more sensible as everyone seemed to be more

motivated when the marketing efforts and other forms of cooperation were fully funded out of the

operators’ own pockets:

31

“Cooperation was very meaningful because everyone knew that they will pay out of

their own pocket and that those resources were used for cooperative actions.” (A5)

(Citation 4.)

E4, E5 and A5 brought about that a significant amount of the current tourism entrepreneurs in the

region are nearing the retirement age, which should be considered in all tourism planning. According

to E4 and E5, the employment office as well as municipalities should assist the entrepreneurs in search

of successors. A5 adds that older and smaller companies, that haven’t been able to develop, may not

succeed in international markets or get a successor.

“A great number of entrepreneurs will retire in the near future. This should be a wake-

up call to realize that those tourism companies will need have a successor.” (E5)

(Citation 5.)

In addition, E4 pointed out that the development companies and associations should be there to

support the entrepreneurs. Also, the information about consulting services should be available for the

entrepreneurs especially now that many companies are facing a change of ownership as many

entrepreneurs of the region are close to retirement age.

“In my opinion the associations should take care of their own. I have heard many

times, especially regarding well-being, that many are starting to feel tired and some

are already of retirement age. So they would get help in change of ownership or in

selling the company” (E4) (Citation 6.)

E4, E5 and A5 discussed the sales of the tourism products in the situation where Karelia Expert no

longer has the sales department. E4 didn’t see it as a big issue, because now there are other sales

companies in the region. E5 found that smaller companies don’t have the resources to do sales and

marketing in addition to their actual operations and hence, they consider that Karelia Expert should

still be responsible for sales and marketing. A5 in turn ponders if the smaller companies can manage

to compete in the current situation:

E2 and E3, in turn, see that the companies should do marketing themselves. E3 points out that the

lack of marketing efforts has led to a situation where the entrepreneurs are afraid of competition:

“But you have to do the marketing yourself. And not too many had done that. - -

Competition was unwelcome here, and the biggest reason to that was probably that

they were afraid to lose the very last of the few customers they had. (E3) (Citation 7.)

A6 sees that currently, the decision-making in the region is too slow for investors to wait. This slows

down the development as the number of big businesses in the region is low. According to A6, now,

the S Group cooperative of North Karelia (PKO) is the only big player and the others are reluctant to

32

take responsibilities in developing tourism. Hence, all others expect the big stakeholder to take the

responsibility and first steps of all kinds of development. A5 added that the region has usually been

behind other nearby regions what comes to investments.

Overall, the opinions of the interviewees regarding the development of the region’s tourism were very

different. Five interviewees viewed the current development and focus to market in the international

markets as positive, five weren’t sure at all what is happening and what the roles of all the operators

are and the rest were sceptical if the current development is positive. Almost all agreed, though, that

the roles of the different operators should be clarified, and cooperation strengthened within the whole

network.

Four interviewees found that before more organizations started to operate in the region’s tourism

field, the cooperation and the roles of different stakeholders were clearer. Also, individual

stakeholders seemed in their opinion to be more motivated to cooperate. According to these

interviewees, when projects started to become a part of tourism development in the region, the

network became more scattered. They also found it questionable that sometimes the project funds

seemed to have been used to support some organization’s or company’s operations.

The opinions regarding whether or not the cooperation in the region is functional or not were also

very different. A few tourism company CEOs stated that finding partners for cooperation has been

challenging due to some operators’ strong reluctance to cooperate and fear or jealousy of competition.

One entrepreneur found cooperation fully unproblematic.

5.1.2. Current actions and mission of the DMO

The CEO of the DMO, Jaakko Löppönen, brings about that contrary to many other Finnish DMOs,

they define the company as a destination management organization, not marketing organization, and

their primary focus is to increase the tourism demand to the region. Instead of marketing and

providing services for the visitors during their stay, they currently focus on increasing tourism

demand and on developing the accessibility, the collaboration within the region and creating direct

contacts with international operators. The CEO views the path of development of less known

destinations to be different than of those that already have a certain amount of visibility: currently, a

role focusing more on management rather than on marketing is for the DMO is more adequate. Later,

when the volume of visitors, operators and profits has increased, the focus can be on marketing.

33

According to the CEO, increasing the tourism flows as well as visibility of the region are best attained

by targeted actions.

The DMO has currently three basic functions. The first one is to increase trade relations by contacting

international operators directly. The company has currently three account managers, one for Europe,

one for Asia and one for Russia, and in those regions, they seek direct contacts with tour operators

and other actors. The second function is marketing. The CEO explained that they focus on digital

marketing and instead of the concept of marketing, they use the word communication. The third

function is supervision of interests, meaning in practice e.g. participating in formulating regional

development strategies, communicating with airline and railroad traffic operators as well as with

different operators and organizations about accessibility and the region’s natural resources.

Currently the DMO is focusing especially on the international markets and therefore, focuses mostly

on companies that want to expand to international markets. Also, in future, the DMO wants to work

more closely with the development companies of the region to advance the companies’ growth.

The CEO brings about that that since the new business model of the company was recently changed

and is a kind of a pilot in the whole country, the current role of the DMO isn’t fully clear to all

organizations and companies in the region. Hence, the transition period of the company is still going

on.

5.2. Leadership within the network

5.2.1. What is regarded as leadership?

The table below presents the components of destination leadership that came about in the interviews.

34

Table 2. Components of destination leadership.

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6

Networking X X X X X X X X X X

Sustainable values X X X X X X X

Vision X X X X X X

Long-term planning and

strategy

X X X X X

Growing collaboration X X X X X

Fluent and strong decision-

making

X X X X

Communication skills and

openness

X X X X

Joint decision-making by the

whole region

X X X X

Offering a discussion forum X X X X

Consulting services and support

for entrepreneurs

X X X

Professionalism X X

Realistic plans X X

Innovation X X

Clarifying roles of stakeholders X

Brand development X

Networking (E1, E2, E3, E4, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6), having a vision (E1, E2, E3, A3, A5, A6),

long-term planning and strategy (E1, A2, A3, A5, A6), sustainable values (E1, E2, E3, A2, A4, A5,

A6) and growing collaboration (E1, A2, A3, A5, A6) were the most frequently mentioned

components of leadership. Each of these were brought up by 5 or more interviewees. A few

differences can be seen between the entrepreneurs’ and other stakeholders’ responses: other

stakeholders found growing collaboration and long-term planning and strategy more important than

the entrepreneurs, whereas offering a discussion forum was only mentioned by entrepreneurs (E1,

E2, E3).

E1 and A1 brought about aspects that affect leadership negatively. Lack of resources and the diversity

of projects were described by E1 as follows:

“There have been all kinds of attempts starting from the 1990’s. These projects are

tricky since there’s a constant lack of money and you can’t always finish things. So

that probably reflects to many things.” (E1) (Citation 8.)

A1 described the tourism companies as the centre and the focus of leadership:

“But that’s the heart of the business: the tourism companies should be assisted with

all these functions in some way or another in order to have more tourism companies.

That is and that should be the focus.” (A1) (Citation 9.)

35

As mentioned, networking and having a broad network was brought about by almost all interviewees

(E1, E2, E3, E4, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6). The advantages of networking were e.g. having the

possibility to share ideas, discuss the regional development (E1, A1, A3, A5) and find joint

compromises and focuses of development (A3, A5). It was also mentioned that as decisions are made

on a personal level, networking is very important in getting to know the stakeholders (A5). E1

summarized the meaning of networks as follows:

“Having a good network around you is an important factor of leadership. - - And

particularly that the members of that network also meet each other and form networks

with each other. So, that you’re a link between different people and networks.” (E1)

(Citation 10.)

Sustainable values (E1, E2, E3, A2, A4, A5, A6) were linked to nature-bound values: for instance,

A6 pointed out that development should be carried out by operations that won’t be harmful for the

nature and the national parks within the region. E1 added that it perhaps also requires courage to keep

sustainable values that respect the nature and culture of the region.

Having a vision was mentioned by A3, A5, A6, E1, E2 and E3. In relation and connection to a vision,

many of these interviewees also brought about having a vision which corresponds with the resources

and nature of the region. A5 connected the need to have a vision to communicative abilities: in

addition to having a vision, the leader should be able to communicate it to the stakeholders so, that

they can relate to it and accept it as their own.

E1 and E2 also brought about that as the resources are scarce and e.g. city councils are re-elected

regularly, and tourism related projects last a certain period of time, it’s challenging to create long-

term plans and visions.

The importance of long-term planning and strategy was brought about by six interviewees (E1, A2,

A3, A5, A6). A3 noted that as all possible issues can’t be included in the strategy, it is important to

follow the vision and plan for the region and only implement those issues that are at that time

considered as most beneficial. According to A5, it is important that e.g. the board of a leading

stakeholder has broad knowledge and experience of the field in order to be able to plan development

actions in a sustainable way. A6, in turn, pointed out that as there are not a lot of big companies in

tourism field in the region, it would be important to focus on growing the region’s tourism in general.

E1 brought about the problematic of short-term plans and especially plans related to funding and

resources: one-year plans make tourism companies insecure as they don’t necessarily know what next

year might bring.

36

Growing collaboration (E1, A2, A3, A5, A6) was also seen to be connected to networking (E1): a

broad network of a leading stakeholder allows for other stakeholders to connect with each other as

well. A5, in turn, pointed out that when e.g. pursuing international markets, it is important to do

collaboration with the nearby regions under the Lakeland brand.

E3 found that the sales companies can, by bringing the tourism companies together and creating joint

packages of their services, increase general collaboration.

Four interviewees (E1, E3, A3, A6) hoped the decision-making in the region, involving several actors

and organizations, would be faster and more fluent. A6 highlighted that tourism development and

leadership is too short sighted in the region. In their opinion, a destination leader should create

possibilities for e.g. the tourism companies, as well as advance development and collaboration. A6

and E3 strongly expressed a need for faster and more straightforward decision-making:

”In my opinion, decision-making is a bit short-sighted here. And when there are

different authorities and municipal policymakers involved, it easily leads to a situation

where the investors don’t have the nerve to wait and they start looking somewhere

else where things advance faster.” (A6) (Citation 11.)

“Since the stakeholders in this region have been focusing on personal advantage in

their foxholes for 20 years, more straightforward and commanding actions are needed

to get things started. This region needs quite strong leadership so that we can get this

started.” (E3) (Citation 12.)

Communication skills and openness was mentioned by four interviewees (E1, E3, A3, A5). E1 and

A5 pointed out that openness enhances also trustworthiness and transparency in decision-making and

actions. Active communication was stressed in order to include stakeholders in the joint discussions

and development. A3 pointed out that communication is an important aspect as different people have

different ways of communicating and therefore, it requires constant effort and different channels

within a broad network of versatile stakeholders.

Joint decision-making (E1, A4, A5, A6) by all the relevant stakeholders was considered necessary in

order to be able to make decisions that are based on the stakeholders’ opinions. Joint decision-making

allows for more transparency (E1), and, having several stakeholders at one table speeds up

discussions and decision-making (A6). According to A5, joint decision-making allows in best case

for the decisions to generally accepted which then makes it easier to form strategies and operate in

practice.

Four interviewees considered the role of a discussion forum important in destination leadership. E1,

E2, E3 and A4 found that they don’t see e.g. the DMO or other municipal of regional stakeholders to

37

have a leading role, but they can very well offer a discussion forum and that such a role is very

beneficial and useful.

Consulting services and support for the tourism businesses was mentioned by three interviewees (E4,

E5, A1). It was seen as important that the supporting stakeholders realize their importance and role

in enhancing the local tourism companies’ operations (A1). In addition, there should be clear

communication to the tourism companies about the services available (E4, E5).

Professionalism was brought about by two interviewees. E3 and E5 linked professionalism to having

someone in a leading position who has experience of tourism field and a broad understanding.

Realism, meaning for instance making realistic plans for tourism development, was stressed by A3

and A5. The interviewees stated that since financial resources usually are scarce, one has to prioritize

and have realistic plans. A5 highlighted that the use of resources should not only follow a vision, but

there should be a common consensus and understanding on how they should be used. According to

the interviewee, this doesn’t necessarily mean even-handedness, but a reasonable division and use of

resources. A3 brought about that strategies and plans are important, but the same time, the

circumstances and situation of the region must be acknowledged:

“You have to keep in mind how much money is at disposal. You also have to be

realistic and remember the company basis of the region. Since there are a lot of small

companies, is it reasonable to try to attract a million customers?” (A3) (Citation 13.)

A4 and A6 found innovation an important aspect of leadership in order to develop the region further.

A4 found that innovation is also linked to encouraging and helping tourism companies to create

innovative products that differentiate them and the region from competitors. A6, in turn, hopes that

there would be innovation as well as courage to realize innovative ideas:

”We do have courage and innovativeness to do new kinds of things. And to develop

tourism field starting from tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, not from the 80s or

70s. I do believe in these things. But currently we don’t really have a vision that would

for instance attract foreign investors or operators to come here.” (A6) (Citation 14.)

According to A1, clarifying the roles of stakeholders would be crucial for both functioning

collaboration and the regional development in general. They point out as well that in a field with a

lot of competition, regional advantage should be the priority and that, in turn, will benefit the

38

organizations and companies. In addition, they find that in some cases e.g. project funding is applied

for and used mainly for the purpose of maintaining an organization’s functions.

Lastly, brand development was brought about by E5. They found that creating a distinctive brand for

North Karelia based on e.g. silence and nature to differentiate the region from other tourism areas in

Finland.

5.2.2. How is leadership perceived to appear in the network?

Three interviewees, E2, A1 and A2 consider the DMO to be the leader in tourism field in the region.

In addition, A2, A4, A6, E1, E2 and E4 see that the DMO has some kind of a role in leadership, or

that it should be the leading stakeholder in the tourism network but is e.g. due to lack of resources not

capable to fully take that position.

“Probably Karelia Expert has its own role in e.g. in these meetings and organizing

things. It still is a kind of a forum that’s always there” (A4) (Citation 15.)

E1 also had the opinion that the DMO, if they had enough resources, would be the stakeholder take

the position of a leader because of its neutral position and its history as a central organization in the

region’s tourism development. Still, E1 thinks that there’s no leadership in the region’s tourism at the

moment:

”-We don’t really have that [a leader] at the moment, especially leadership. So, firm

actions should be taken. We should take the road map and see which direction to go

to.” (E1) (Citation 16.)

A6 viewed the city of Joensuu as the most significant stakeholder since it owns the majority of Karelia

Expert and its decisions regarding e.g. zoning, permissions and clearances are important in regard of

the region’s tourism.

E3 sees the sales company Wild Nordic Finland (Villi Pohjola) as the leading stakeholder in tourism

field of the region because the company has been able to develop more and more collaboration among

the entrepreneurs.

According to A5 the predecessor of Karelia Expert, the marketing office of North Karelia (Pohjois-

Karjalan markkinointitoimisto) had a leading position because it had been able to gather the tourism

stakeholders together, and e.g. marketing included a lot of joint efforts where all actors, companies

39

and municipalities, invested financially. E5 found the tourism network is very scattered at the

moment, and that currently there is no stakeholder that would have enough resources to develop the

region. A5 couldn’t name any stakeholder as a leader and, as mentioned, found the situation very

different than earlier:

“I don’t really know if regional tourism marketing or leadership exists anymore.”

(A5) (Citation 17.)

5.3. Components of influence and the most influential stakeholders

5.3.1. The roles of the most influential stakeholders

Table 3. The most influential tourism stakeholders in the region according to the interviewees.

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6

Karelia Expert X X X X X X

Municipalities X 1.

PKO 1. 1. 1. 1.

Tourism associations X X X X

Development companies X X X

Metsähallitus X X X X X X

Tourism companies X 1. 1. 1.

Customers X X

Sales companies 1. X 1.

The most influential and significant stakeholders as brought about by the interviewees are presented

in table 3. Most interviewees mentioned several stakeholders, as can be seen in the table. The ones

they regarded as most influential are marked with the number 1. A5 was the only interviewee who

couldn’t name stakeholders who would have most influence. They pondered that economic resources

bring influence but that there’s no single stakeholder that would have more influence, i.e. economic

resources over the others.

Several interviewees, A1, A4, A5, E1, E3 bring about that the situation among all different parties

involved in the tourism field in the region is somewhat unclear. According to A5, the roles of the

different stakeholders became more scattered when projects became more and more popular in

tourism field. Before that, they stated, everyone was more motivated as everything was paid from the

own pocket. A1 highlights as well that the use of resources and the roles in collaboration should be

formed more clearly:

40

“It’s always said that collaboration is quite good and easy here. But I do have to say

that developing collaboration into a fruitful direction, there’s still work to be done.

And the roles should be accepted more accurately.” (A1) (Citation 18.)

A4 also sees the roles regarding marketing efforts as unclear and points out that at the moment it’s

difficult to e.g. find information about events. According to them, the website of the city of Joensuu

should have more information about events and the city’s sights, in several languages.

According to five interviewees (A1, A4, A5, A6, E3), it would be crucial for the current companies

and entrepreneurs to invest at least a little bit more in the company to be able to grow and differentiate

oneself on the market. In practice, this is often challenging for small companies as was expressed by

A4:

“So many of our companies are so small that they could still invest in development a

little bit more. - - I do know that the financial situation is tight for many and you can’t

really make suggestions of potential actions since you know that their energy is

focused on earning the daily bread. But if they could grow just enough to find their

own path.” (A4) (Citation 19.)

Courage and willingness to invest by current entrepreneurs or potential future investors and

entrepreneurs were brought about by several interviewees (A4, A5, A6). A6 pointed out that the

slowliness of planning and decision-making processes affect outside investors’ willingness to invest

in the region and that the municipal decision-makers should actively take part in all tourism-related

discussion forums. They also see it as problematic that many stakeholders expect the biggest players

to always take the first steps in developing the region. A1, A3 and E3 noted though, that especially

smaller companies should do very careful calculations and, also be prepared for less successful

seasons.

41

Table 4. Sources of influence linked to different stakeholders by interviewees.

Municipaliti

es

Metsähalli

tus

PKO Karelia

Expert

Tourism

Associatio

ns

Development

companies

Tourism

companies

Sales

Companies

Custo

mers

Economic

Financial capital X X X

Infrastructure/na

tural resources

X X X

Organization size

X

Social

resources

Reputation, past

services

X X X X X X

Charisma

Socioeconomic status

Moral worth

Human

capital/expert

Expertise,

Development

X X X X X X X

Information X

Experience X X X X X X X

Intelligence

Ability to

lead/network

X X X X

Other sources

Reward based

Coercive X

Referent

Regulatory power

X X X

Municipalities

The municipalities’ role was perceived as significant by two interviewees, A1 and A6. Municipalities’

influence lies mostly in decisions regarding infrastructure and natural resources as well as zoning

(A1, A6), and, also because municipalities own the DMO with the city of Joensuu being the biggest

shareholder.

A3 and A4 also discussed the role of the municipalities but didn’t necessarily consider them as very

influential. A1 and A4 recognize the lack of resources in all development and that tourism might not

be the priority. A2 and A3 brought about that it is nevertheless important for the municipalities to

understand the importance of tourism as a branch of industry. According to A1 and A3, tourism is

usually seen as a potential in strategies, but there hasn’t been so much actions or investments to use

the potential. A3 is of the opinion that unwillingness to invest derives at least partly from the fact that

it’s possible to fund tourism development with different kinds of projects and hence, municipalities

might consider it unnecessary to fund tourism development.

42

Metsähallitus

The role of Metsähallitus was regarded as influential by six interviewees (E1, E3, A1, A2, A4, A6).

Infrastructure and natural resources (E1, E3, A1, A2, A4, A6) as well as regulatory power (E1, E3,

A1, A2, A4, A6) in the areas managed by Metsähallitus were seen as its sources of influence. On one

hand, Metsähallitus is seen as an organization that enables the tourism companies’ activities in its

areas and on the other hand, it also has the guidance and control over the use of the land and

infrastructure. Metsähallitus guides the activities through e.g. the contracts that the companies

operating in Metsähallitus’ areas must sign.

It was also noted by A3 and A6 that since Metsähallitus is a rather large, state-run organization, its

processes may take a longer time and it may not be able to provide all the resources and services that

according to the interviewees would be needed. A1 also points out that e.g. the predecessor of

Metsähallitus in Koli, the Finnish Forest Research Institute (Metsäntutkimuslaitos), Metla, focused

mostly on research and the development of the area for tourism purposes started when Metsähallitus

took over. Still, E2 and E5 emphasized that maintenance of e.g. national parks should be more active.

E2 described the role of Metsähallitus as follows:

”It has to exist. It’s important in enabling nature tourism in Finland but, currently, the

maintenance of the service structures is dragging - - The numbers of users have

exploded, and they are not able to react.” (E2) (Citation 24.)

The S Group cooperative of North Karelia (PKO)

The role of the S Group cooperative of North Karelia (PKO, Pohjois-Karjalan Osuuskauppa) was

mentioned by most interviewees and four interviewees, E1, A1, A2 and A3, found its role influential.

The influence of PKO was stated to be based on its financial capital, (E1, A1, A2, A3) and the growth

and development that its investments have brought. The same time, the interviewees hope that there

would be more stakeholders willing to invest in the field for more growth and attractiveness. E1 and

A6 pondered about the effects of having one big chain company in the region:

“It’s damaging our tourism industry in which we seek for authenticity and uniqueness

- - But the fact is that money plays a big role at the moment and that’s how it should

be, nothing works if there are no operators with enough money to maintain the

properties and the activities. So, nothing is that black-and-white.” (E1) (Citation 20.)

“Be it any kind of an operation of development, it usually means that everyone looks

at the one stakeholder first that has a bigger turnover. Then, there aren’t really other

stakeholders to bear the responsibility of developing things.” (A6) (Citation 21.)

43

Karelia Expert Oy (DMO)

There were differing opinions about the role of the DMO, Karelia Expert Oy. It was, however,

considered as influential or somewhat influential by six interviewees (E1, E3, E4, A1, A2, A6). The

DMO was found influential because of its reputation and past services (E1, E3, E4, A1, A2, A6) as

it has a long history in the region’s tourism development, its expertise and ability to develop (E4, A1,

A2, A6), its experience (E1, E3, E4, A1, A2, A6) and ability to lead and network (A1, A2, A6). E4,

A1, A2 and A6 found that the DMO is significant and focusing on the right things, whereas E1, E3

and A5 find the DMO’s current role somewhat unclear and/or not as significant and influential as it

could be. E1 and E3, for example, found the DMO to have an important role even though it wasn’t

fully clear to them. E2 pointed out that as the DMO no longer has the sales department, they don’t

have so much influence on the entrepreneurs.

A5 sees that the network the DMO had formed used to be stronger and more collective. According to

A5, the network became more scattered and fragmented when several development companies and

more projects started operating in the region. A5 also pondered whether the image of the DMO

represents North Karelia and if it has been able to create an image strong enough to compete with

other destinations. E1 described the role of the DMO as follows:

“They [the DMO] aren’t very open about their actions. So, we don’t know everything

that they are doing behind the scenes. - - It would be great, though, to get regular

updates.” (E1) (Citation 22.)

Some interviewees consider the DMO and the events it organizes as a forum where the entrepreneurs

can form new networks but where the DMO doesn’t necessarily have a leading role. For example,

though E2 expects some kind of a leading role from the DMO, they agreed with A4 and E4 in that

the DMO is a kind of a forum that gathers the entrepreneurs together and in that way advances

collaboration among the companies.

A1, A2 and E4 saw the role and development of the DMO in a positive way and were happy about

the regular meetings they organize with the entrepreneurs in different places around the region. They

also bring about that the atmosphere and many other things have been developing into a good

direction and hence, hope that this development will continue and that the roles will be clarified. A2

sees the development in a similar way and added that the funding of the DMO is now on a “solid

44

ground” since the municipalities are funding it, and that the joint marketing efforts as a part of

Lakeland will be a good step forward for North Karelia.

E5 and A5 didn’t consider Karelia Expert’s decision to give up the sales as a positive development

whereas two interviewees (E2, E3) consider that the companies must market and sell their own

products, and everything else is extra. E3 described the situation around the time when they started

their company as follows:

“Quite many companies said to me that it’s no use to cooperate with VisitKarelia

because they don’t bring in any customers. But it’s not the job of VisitKarelia to bring

in any customers. It’s not their job to market anyone’s company. The company must

market their company themselves. And then, everything that VisitKarelia does is

extra.” (E3) (Citation 23.)

Tourism associations

The associations were considered influential because of their reputation and past services (A1, A4),

expertise and ability to develop (E4, A1, A4), experience (E4, A1, A4) and ability to lead and network

(E4, A3). E4, A1 and A3 considered the associations as significant, and A1 even described the

Ilomantsi Tourism association and Koli Tourism Association as engines of the areas the operate in.

According to E3, the associations, alongside with other operators, have started to become more active

and e.g. organize different kinds of events. Furthermore, E3 and E4 found that the tourism

associations have brought entrepreneurs and companies together and the associations’ work seems to

become more and more important. E3 and E4 also highlighted that co-operation among the

associations, the DMO and entrepreneurs plays an important role. In addition to the DMO, E4

considered the association as a forum for the companies. A3 also pointed out that the associations

have an important role in the more remote areas and villages of the region.

A5 pointed out that associations depend greatly on the activity and resources of the members and

therefore, the associations’ success varies and the tourism associations of Koli and Ilomantsi seem to

be the most influential ones. E4 and A5 brought about that the tourism association of Ilomantsi has,

as the only North Karelian representative, in recent years been present at the Matka Nordic Travel

Fair with the local entrepreneurs.

45

Development companies

Development companies were seen as relatively influential by four interviewees (E1, E4, A1, A2),

but their role didn’t seem to be clear. Nevertheless, A2 described them as belonging to the “key

players”. Development companies were considered influential because of their expertise and ability

to develop the region (E1, E4, A1, A2) and their experience (E1, E4, A1, A2).

E1 considers the link to other business fields important and ponders if e.g. Business Joensuu should

take a bigger role and even have a unit focusing on tourism businesses. E4 sees the development

companies as important in e.g. advising the companies of the region.

There was also confusion regarding the development companies’ roles (A1, A5). A1 stresses the

importance of role division and the same time sees the development companies as important in the

region. Also, A1 questions whether the use of resources is always meaningful:

”They [EU and other development funds] are being applied for by many stakeholders

and mainly to maintain the stakeholders’ own activities and jobs. While we actually

should focus on how to develop the business and on what is the role of the

development companies. They should be there to coach and help the companies.” (A1)

(Citation 25.)

E4 complimented the expertise that the development companies have to offer regarding e.g. projects

and change of ownership. E4 also noted that the entrepreneurs might not be aware of all the consulting

services that for example the development companies provide.

Tourism companies

The role of the tourism companies themselves was considered the most influential by three

interviewees (E3, E4, A4) and as somewhat influential by E2. E2, E3 and A4 consider the companies

important because of expertise and because lastly, they decide about development. E2 highlighted

also the value of practical experience that the entrepreneurs have. E3 stressed the tourism companies’

responsibility to develop in regard of the whole region: the sales companies will only operate in the

region if they have profitable and successful products to sell. Information was also mentioned by E3

as a factor that may increase a tourism company’s influence and competitive advantage momentarily.

However, E3 highlighted that it’s also important to share information and knowledge that may be

46

beneficial for the whole region and other operators if it doesn’t affect one’s own competitive

advantage.

A1 also brought about that as many of the companies are quite small, only have seasonal activities

and are located scattered around the region, their influence in the development of the region isn’t so

remarkable. According to A1, developing the collaboration among entrepreneurs and other

stakeholders to strengthen the tourism companies would be important. Support from the different

regional organizations was also highlighted:

”There is no tourism without tourism companies. But since we have such scattered

and small tourism companies, and some of them even work part-time, they need more

this kind of help from the organizations.” (A1) (Citation 26.)

The CEO of the DMO sees the accommodation service providers as the most influential since they

have the biggest economic role in the region’s tourism field. He compares the situation to Lapland,

where there are several big destination management companies and who the hoteliers and others

greatly depend on.

Sales companies

E2, E3 and E5 brought about the influence of sales companies since they are the instances who sell

the products. Sales companies were regarded influential because of financial capital (E3),

organization size (E3), expertise and development (E2, E3, E5), experience (E3), ability to lead and

network (E3). E3 also mentioned that the biggest sales companies may have coercive power: if they

do a lot of sales and have international contacts, they may even dictate to the tourism companies how

they should operate certain things or what kinds of tours they should offer, for instance. It should be

mentioned, though, that E3 viewed this as a good thing and that the directness speeds up development.

Of all sales companies, the Wild Nordic Finland (E3) and Finland Travel company (E5) were brought

up as especially influential. Hence, the sales companies have an important role regarding the services

and products as E2 summed up:

“It does have more importance if a sales company representative, who sells the

products, tells you about customers’ wishes and where they wish we would invest in.”

(E2) (Citation 27.)

47

Customers

Two interviewees (E2, A4) found the customers’ role important: as they themselves decide where

they travel, they were considered to have economic influence (E2, E4). Hence, the influence that

customers have was categorized as financial influence. A4 also brought about that general trends

affect the customers’ decisions. In this instance, E2 recognized the importance of sales companies,

since sales companies bring the message regarding demand but it’s the customers who create demand.

“On the other hand, customers surely have power, if you think about it that way.

General trends have a great effect on where people go to so it’s not always necessarily

about the destination.” (A4) (Citation 28.)

48

5.3.2. Components of influence

In previous chapter the most influential stakeholders of the tourism network were presented. In this

chapter, the components which according to the interviewees make stakeholders influential are listed

according to categories. The components are presented in table 4 below.

Table 5. Sources of power according to the interviewees.

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6

Economic

Financial capital X X X X X X X X X

Infrastructure/natural resources X X X X X X X X X

Organization size X

Social resources

Reputation, past services** X X

Charisma

Socioeconomic status

Moral worth**

Human capital/expert

Expertise, Development X X X X X X

Information

Experience X

Intelligence

Ability to lead/network X X X X X X

Other sources

Reward based*** X

Coercive*** X X

Referent**

Regulatory power* X X X X X X

Process power*** X X X X X X X

External factors*

AirBnb and similar platforms* X X

Emergence of EU funds and projects* X X

Global tourism trends* X X

Competition among nearby regions* X

*These sources of power were not found in the literature but came about in the interviews.

**Moral worth and referent power were only mentioned in the interviews when asked about factors affecting

the formation of trust. Reputation and past services, however, were mentioned as both a source of power as

well as trust.

***These sources of power (reward based, coercive, process power) were linked to projects which may be

organized by different or even several operators and hence, these sources were not linked to a specific operator.

Table 4 summarizes the sources of influence mentioned in the interviews. It can be seen that financial

capital, infrastructure and natural resources, ability to lead and network as well as regulatory power

49

came about most frequently in the interviews. Charisma, socioeconomic status and intelligence came

about in the literature but were not mentioned at all in the interviews for this study.

Reputation and past services, moral worth and referent power came about in the literature as factors

increasing a stakeholder’s power. In the interviews for this study, however, moral worth and referent

power were only mentioned in the context of trust: they were mentioned as factors that either increase

or decrease one’s trust on another actor. However, as Nunkoo & Ramkissoon (2012) point out, power

may influence the prospective partners perceptions of each other as well as the types and outcomes

of possible cooperative actions. Reputation and past services were mentioned both in the context of

power as well as trust and, hence,

Economic

Financial capital (E1, E2, E3, E5, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) as a source of power came about in almost

all interviews. Nine interviewees referred to biggest stakeholders in the region such as PKO. Bigger

sales companies were seen as influential by E3: as financially resourceful they may set rules for

operations. In addition, the customers’ influence is counted among this category since their choices

bring financial resource to the region and to specific stakeholders within the region.

Infrastructure and natural resources (E1, E3, E4, E5, A1, A2, A4, A5, A6) were as well seen as

having a significant impact on a stakeholder’s influence in the region. Metsähallitus and PKO came

about as influential due to infrastructure and natural resources. E2 and E5 pointed out that e.g.

accessibility in the whole region and the national parks should be better maintained and developed.

E5 wasn’t fully satisfied about how in general in Finland the resources of e.g. Metsähallitus are

divided:

”The money is distributed according to the amount of visitors. I guess it’s good if

something brings money since there have to be some kind of guidelines on how to use

the money. But now, they should not only look at the numbers of visitors. They should

look at where’s empty and space for more visitors.” (E5) (Citation 29.)

In addition, this category includes the municipalities, the council of the region and their influence on

e.g. zoning, land use and permissions. A1 and A6, for instance, hoped that e.g. municipalities would

be quicker and more courageous in making decisions in order for the local entrepreneurs and potential

investors to have better settings for operations.

50

Organization size (E3) as a source of power came about in regard of a bigger sales company operating

in the region. They described the sales company as influential due to its international business

companies and how it has managed to grow its operations.

Social resources

Reputation & past services (E1, A2) was the only source of power in the category of social resources

that came about in the interviews. A2 brought about that Karelia Expert has gained influence in the

region due to its long history in the region’s tourism development. E1 also mentioned Karelia Expert

for the same reason, as well as PKO, since it’s a part of a corporation known in the whole country.

Human capital

Expertise was mentioned by five interviewees (E2, E3, A2, A3, A4). Expertise was seen as a factor

increasing the influence of the DMO (E2, E3, A2), the development companies (A2, A3, E4), sales

companies (E3) and tourism companies (E2, E3, A4). E5 mentioned expertise as a general factor

increasing influence. E4 brought about experience as something that increases the tourism companies’

value and influence. The ability to lead (E2, E3, A1, A3, A4, A5) was linked with networking and

having good social skills. E2, E3 and A1 found the tourism associations in the region to have a central

role in that they gather the companies together. E2 found that in order to have successful projects, the

people managing projects should have the ability to lead the participants. This included having good

social skills and finding focuses for the project which suit both the region and the participants’ goals.

According to E3, the ability to lead sometimes requires clarity and firm actions:

”Someone with a bit more money can first ask for things in a polite way. Then, they

will command and say how things will be done. And that’s what this region needs at

the moment. Strong leadership is needed so that we can get this started.” (E3) (Citation

30.)

Other sources

Reward based (E1, E2, E3, E4) power came about in regard of projects. These four interviewees, all

CEOs of tourism companies, told that they had participated in projects in the perception that they

would get e.g. awareness and through that, more sales. Many of the entrepreneurs said that it very

51

much depends on the project and the participants, to which extent the goals are met. Also coercive

power came about in regard of projects: E1, E2 and E3 found that especially in the early times of the

companies they felt they had to participate in all projects and if they didn’t, they would be left behind

from the network and the regional development. E2 has found that often times the project leaders try

to have as many entrepreneurs in the project, no matter the stage or goals of the company.

Seven interviewees (E1, E2, E3, E5, A1, A3, A5) discussed projects in general and the problematic

around them. The influence that projects and their organizers have is categorized as process power in

this study. A3 and A5 found it in general problematic that there are so many projects going on in the

region. E1, E2, E3, E5 and A1, in turn, criticized the use of funding and other resources within

projects. It was stated that big projects are usually not very useful as the focus tends to vanish when

there are too many participants and wishes. Also, E1, E2, E3 and A1 found it troubling that project

funds sometimes seem to be used to maintain an organization’s or company’s functions, or in some

other way that doesn’t seem professional.

Regulatory power (E1, E2, E3, E5, A1, A2) was mentioned regarding Metsähallitus’ and the

municipalities’ power to regulate the stakeholders’ operations. This source of power was not found

in the literature but was added to the table as it came about in the interviews. The power of

Metsähallitus was described by E3 as follows:

”In regard of regional development they play a major role. In practice they define how

nature tourism is practised in the nature parks or if there is any.” (E3) (Citation 31.)

External factors

Five interviewees brought about external factors (E2, E5, A3, A4, A5): the emergence of AirBnb and

similar operators and their effect on the field (E5, A3, A4), the emergence of projects and EU funds

and their effect on the operations and roles in the field (A4, A5) and general global trends in tourism

(E2, A4) were noted as having an influence the field. E5, for instance, brought about that some

entrepreneurs utilizing AirBnb as a platform don’t pay taxes and therefore have lower prices which

in turn makes competition distorted. General competition among the nearby regions (A5) came also

about:

“Competition has become more tough so that must have a big effect. I don’t think that

this region has become less attractive, but on the other hand, we have quite often fallen

behind the neighboring regions especially what comes to investments.” (A5) (Citation

32.)

52

5.4. Collaboration within the tourism network

5.4.1. Collaboration among the entrepreneurs

All interviewed entrepreneurs have active collaboration with other service providers in the region. E1

brought about that even though not all collaboration brings financial benefit, collaboration is

nevertheless vital for their company:

”We collaborate constantly with other companies. Our life is basically based on

collaboration. I would have given up entrepreneurship a long time ago if it hadn’t been

for the network. – Without this kind of a network and without collaboration, nobody

would stay sane here.” (E1) Citation 33.)

E4 also brings forth the mental support from business partners whom they also describe as a kind of

a family where openness in good and bad times is an empowering factor. The interviewee appreciates

the support of the other entrepreneurs, creation of ideas and products together as well as keeping up

the energy to create.

E2 brought about that after having been an entrepreneur for a longer time, they carefully consider

with whom to collaborate. Having a lot of experience of collaboration with several companies, they

have concluded that 1) values must match, 2) level of the service is as promised, 3) trustworthiness

regarding e.g. timetables and 4) availability (e.g. answering e-mails). E2, as well as E3, pointed out

strongly that the entrepreneurs must be very active themselves in seeking partners and ways of

collaboration.

E3 sees collaboration as vital and stresses that they always stay open regarding potential new partners

and always negotiate and only then decide whether or not to collaborate. While starting their business,

they noticed that many companies weren’t open or willing to collaborate by e.g. sharing resources

and equipment for a decent price. According to E3, many entrepreneurs in the region see new

entrepreneurs merely as rivals and don’t acknowledge that a greater amount of businesses in the

region also grow the capacity to serve more customers which benefits all businesses in the region.

“In principle I always say yes. We’ll discuss what we can do and after a meeting we

will decide whether we’ll do something or not. If our plans match. - - sometimes it

has happened that I’ve said that I can’t do this but ask this person. - - And then we

have this kind of, even though we wouldn’t work together so we can still help the

other person.” (E3) (Citation 34.)

53

5.4.2. General collaboration

Other interviewees found collaboration important as well. A1 considers personalities as important in

collaboration as well as courage to suggest and try new things and brought about projects as examples,

that in their opinion wouldn’t have been possible without personal efforts. They list vision, openness,

understanding of resources at hand and personality as well as sense of humour as factors that advance

collaboration. A1 and A5 also bring about that in comparison to each stakeholder only working on

their own, collaboration multiplies the potential of the stakeholders and through collaboration,

something can be achieved that no one actor alone, or even 3 or 4, could do.

”Some people just are more open. They can develop it [the company/project] together

and find tips on how to grow it. In good cooperation the value of joint efforts is a bit

higher in comparison to everyone focusing on their own thing.” (A1) (Citation 35.)

A2 notes good past experiences as well as communication as factors enhancing trust towards partners

in collaboration. A5 sees trust as crucial and evident precondition of collaboration. They also see a

long history of collaboration and personally knowing the people as something that welds the partners

together and strengthens the collaboration. They also add, that in best case entrepreneurs can create a

close network where they can ask for help in case of sickness or other sudden changes. A6 sees

financially beneficial collaboration rather as an exception and e.g. common marketing efforts or

exchange of knowledge as more common forms of collaboration. A3 and A4, in turn, see only

financially beneficial collaboration as reasonable and notes that having a long history working with

different kinds of companies and in many projects, the collaboration has ended if financial ties no

longer exist.

“Usually, collaboration seems to function as long as there’s some project going on.

But when that ends and if there’s no other common financial factor, the collaboration

dies out.” (A4) (Citation 36.)

A5 sees collaborating networks as very important in sharing resources, expenses, risks and working

hours. When the resources are put together, the result and financial income can be much better:

“For example, in a network of 5 operators, none of them alone can alone create e.g. a

whole tourism product. Maybe even three can’t do that, but the five of them can

together create it together.” (A5) (Citation 37.)

54

To conclude, A6 would recommend collaboration as well as networking to all entrepreneurs not only

within the region but also in a national level. At the same time, they understand that for a small

company it is difficult to find backup if one wants to e.g. go to Helsinki to attend a seminar.

According to the CEO of the DMO, geographical distances between the tourism companies of the

region, historical differences between the towns and areas as well as different goals of the companies

form challenges for tourism development within the region. In addition, it would for general

collaboration be important for collaboration that all stakeholders would be able to define their

mission, role and goals as specifically as possible. This way also the DMO and e.g. the development

companies can assist the companies in an appropriate way.

The CEO brought up the openness of expressing feelings in collaboration. They point out that since

it in the end is about people working with people creating new ideas, it is important to be able and

allowed to express your feelings. This is also related to the role of trust in collaboration, which will

be discussed in the following chapter.

5.5. Trust in collaboration and factors affecting the formation of trust

Trust was described as central by the interviewees in regard of collaboration and, also, generally in

doing business. Several interviewees view trust as the base of collaboration, so, that in their opinion

a business can’t succeed without the ability to build trust. E2 and E4 stressed that when selling tourism

packages with products from several companies, it is crucial for the reputation of all those companies

and the whole region to be able to trust the other companies’ work and effort. A6 also pointed out

that since most tourism operators in the region know each other, it’s even more important to be

consistent with one’s actions and words. A5 described the significance of trust as follows:

“I myself consider trust as essential to a degree that it did not even occur to me to

mention it. Trust is crucial in everything, it’s really important in all business. If you

don’t have trust, you don’t have anything. Knowing and trusting the stakeholders are

extremely important things.” (A5) (Citation 38.)

Some interviewees (E2, E3, A1) also commented on the role of what kind of people they work with

within the network. E3 and A1 bring about that it is in the end about working with people, and also,

it’s the people who create the vision and either enable or disable development. E2 and E3 pointed out

that before starting collaboration with a company, they discuss and plan it carefully both on their own

as well as with the potential stakeholder in collaboration.

55

“Before we start anything, we are very clear about our views on collaboration as well

as on trust and openness in collaboration. We have been choosing partners for

cooperation according to that.” (E3) (Citation 39.)

5.5.1. What enhances trust in collaboration?

In this chapter, the factors affecting trust in collaboration positively are presented according to

categories. In the end of the chapter, the factors are summarized in a table. Interpersonal competence

(E1, E2, E3, E4, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6) as well as open and active communication (E1, E2, E3,

E4, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6) can be considered the most important aspects as they were mentioned

by almost all interviewees.

56

Table 6. Factors affecting trust and the formation of trust.

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6

Skills and competences

Business sense X

Interpersonal competence X X X X X X X X X X

Functional comp., knowledge

and professionalism

X X X X X

Experience on collaboration

Open and active

communication*

X X X X X X X X X X

Characteristics

Integrity, motives, moral

character and values

X X X X X

Openness, accessibility and

availability

X X X X X

Discreetness

Judgment

Predictability X X X X

Benevolence/altruism X X

Reciprocity* X X

Courage to act* X X X X X

Similar ways of working* X

Similar personalities* X

Actions

Reputation X X X

Consistency of behaviour X X X

Contextual/practical factors

Time frame for a project X

Resources at hand

Existence of a contract X

Other factors

Clarity of roles in cooperation* X X

Similar situations in life* X

Common goals* X X

Same wavelength* X X

Past successful cooperation* X X X

Community spirit* X X

*These factors came about in the data and were added to the theory-based categorization.

Skills and competences

Nine interviewees (E1, E2, E3, E4, A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5) stressed interpersonal competence as

well as open and active communication. Communication should be clear, on time and only include

the necessary information. E2 brought forth situations where several entrepreneurs create a joint

tourism package: in these cases, the customer might ask any operator about the program and its details

and therefore, it’s crucial for all stakeholders to know the details to be able to serve the customer

57

well. E2 also points out that serving customers well is not only important for them, but for the

reputation of all entrepreneurs and the whole region.

Open and active communication also includes availability and clarity of communication. E2 and A5

stressed that the partner in cooperation must respond to messages and questions on time and, also

provide the other party with all necessary information.

Professionalism was mentioned by five interviewees (E2, E3, E5, A2, A4). E3 brought about that

they might not start cooperating with a new entrepreneur before they have seen how they manage in

tourism field. The same time, the interviewees didn’t see lack of experience as a reason to not

cooperate. Especially the entrepreneurs (E2, E3) only want to save their own resources and only

participate in cooperation that is reasonable and beneficial for them.

Characteristics

Openness to cooperation and new ideas (E2, E3, A2, A5, A6) was one of the first factors mentioned

by E3 and A6. Values, included in the same category with integrity, motives and moral character,

were found very important by several interviewees (E1, E2, E3, A2, A5). Moral character came about

in three interviews (E2, A4, A5), namely regarding finances. It was found important that all parties

get their financial share of the cooperation and that there is clarity also about finances.

Predictability, e.g. being able to trust that the other party delivers the service that was promised, was

found important by four interviewees (E2, E3, E4, E5). Reciprocity came also about by two

interviewees (E3, E5). According to these interviewees, reciprocity can e.g. be helping in practical

issues such as borrowing equipment. E4 described this as very helpful, since it allows the companies

to balance the total workload and nobody has to have the resources to do everything by themselves.

Benevolence and altruism were important for E3 and E4. For them, benevolence means e.g. that the

entrepreneurs recommend each other’s products and services for customers. For E3, benevolence is

also linked in backup situations where an entrepreneur needs help to deliver a service.

E1 mentioned similar ways of working and similar personalities as factors that in their opinion grow

trust. These factors make especially close cooperation easier.

58

Actions

Reputation was associated to trust by three interviewees (E1, E2, E3). According to the interviewees,

it’s easier to trust companies that have had successful operations. E3 also brought about how a specific

employee’s professionalism, reputation and experience can create trust towards a company or an

organization. E2 found reputation significant in general in collaboration: if a stakeholder has a

positive reputation, it makes it easier to initiate cooperation with them. E2 and E3 stated how

important it is for them to have matching values and goals when e.g. deciding if they will cooperate

with an organization or company.

Consistency of behaviour came also about by three interviewees (A1, A5, A6) both in specific

cooperation between companies and in general within the whole network. This aspect was described

by A6 as follows:

“Being consistent is central. That your message is same in every forum, that’s surely

the most important thing. Because, no matter from which direction you look at it, since

the circles are small, you can’t really take a misstep.” (A6) (Citation 40.)

Contextual / Practical factors

E2 found it important to have a planned time frame for projects and cooperation. Existence of a formal

contract only come about in one interview (A5) but a few interviewees (E2, E3) said that it’s

important to have an agreement about what will be done. E2 found this important not only regarding

trust, but also in regard of customers: if all service providers know the program of a day tour, they

can provide additional information to the customers.

Other factors

Courage to act was mentioned by five interviewees (E1, E4, A1, A4, A6). According to the answers,

there were two aspects to this factor: firstly, courage to create new kinds of products and services in

cooperation and secondly, courage to believe that cooperation is beneficial for all parties.

Clarity of roles in cooperation was stressed by E1 and A1. Clarity of roles makes the cooperation

easier and more effective, clarifies funding in e.g. projects and also makes the companies’ and

organizations’ roles clearer in the whole network in general.

59

Being on the same wavelength was found important by E3. They stressed that said their company has

a clear vision about how they want to develop and hence, they look for partners who share those

visions and in that way are on the same wavelength. Same wavelength meant for them having similar

views about in which direction the tourism in the region should be developed.

As mentioned above, past experience in cooperation wasn’t seen as necessary for cooperation, but

past successful cooperation (E1, E2, E4) was nevertheless mentioned as a trust-enhancing factor.

E4 and A3 found community spirit and common goals important regarding several things. A3 found

community spirit beneficial in joint operations and projects and states a good atmosphere having been

a significant factor for successful joint operations. E4 finds community spirit as an important aspect

regarding general openness, communication and creation of new ideas in the whole network.

According to these interviewees, community spirit was also related to common goals: they found it

important that the companies and organizations don’t only think about their own success, but the

success of the region. E4 described community spirit as follows:

”If we can’t provide some service to a customer, it’s very easy to recommend another

company. We are of course happy to recommend other companies for the customer.

There’s no jealousy that would hinder us from allowing someone else to provide a

service that we can’t provide.” (E4) (Citation 41.)

Similar situations in life were also mentioned by E1 as a factor that isn’t the most important but helps

in creating a more personal relationship and trust with the partner in cooperation.

As can be seen in the table above, interpersonal competence, open and active communication,

functional competence/knowledge/professionalism, openness/accessibility/availability and courage

to act were the most frequently mentioned factors affecting trust positively. It can also be seen that

even though the most factors had been mentioned by both entrepreneurs and other stakeholders, some

factors were only mentioned by either group. For instance, predictability, benevolence/altruism,

reciprocity and past successful cooperation were brought up only by tourism company CEOs. For

instance, benevolence/altruism, reciprocity and predictability came up in regard of situations in which

an entrepreneur would first have helped another entrepreneur and then expect the other entrepreneur

to return the favour. Consistency of behaviour was only brought up by other stakeholders. These

differences may result from the relationships between different operators being different and hence,

the expectations and needs towards the relationships are different.

In the following chapter, factors affecting collaboration negatively will be discussed briefly.

60

5.5.2. Factors affecting trust and collaboration negatively

Several interviewees (E1, E2, E3, A1, A2, A4, A6) brought about that the nonexistence of trust-

enhancing factors discussed in the previous chapter affect trust negatively. Therefore, to avoid

repetition, this chapter will mostly include aspects that weren’t mentioned above.

Factors that hinder collaboration include e.g. jealousy (E4, E5), fear of competition (E3), poor

personal relationships (E5), poor past experiences (E2), the partner’s unwillingness to follow

regulations (E2, E5), lack of participation in joint meetings (A2), the partner’s dishonesty about

regulations (E2, E5), dishonesty about finances (E2, A5), lack of personal contact between partners

(E3, A5), lack of consistency of behaviour and words (A1, A6) and unprofessionalism (A1, A6).

61

Table 7. Factors affecting trust and the formation of trust negatively.

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6

Characteristics

Jealousy X X

Fear of competition X

Actions

Lack of communication X X X X X X X X X X

Unwillingness to follow

regulations

X X

Lack of participation in joint

meetings

X

Dishonesty about finances X X

Lack of consistency X X

Unprofessionalism X X

Other factors

Poor personal relationship X

Poor past experience X

Lack of personal contact X X

Characteristics

Jealousy (E4, E5) and fear (E3) seemed to have similar roots: both aspects were connected to some

stakeholders’ negative thoughts about their competitor having more customers. According to the

interviewees, fear and jealousy may hinder some companies from cooperation.

Actions

Lack of or poor communication was mentioned by several interviewees (E2, E3, E4, A1, A5).

Practical examples were also given about situations, in which poor communication has even led to

ending collaboration.

A few entrepreneurs (E2, E5) pointed out that there are some entrepreneurs that do not follow all

regulations and laws, such as paying the registration fees or following the renewed law regarding

package tours. Hence, according to E2 and E5, this kind of activity doesn’t encourage cooperation or

trustworthiness.

A2 points out that for successful cooperation, it would be important for all stakeholders to be as active

as possible in joint meetings and discussion forums. This would advance the general discussion,

planning as well as cooperation.

62

E2 and A5 considered dishonesty about finances as a clear end for cooperation. E2 even mentioned

that a former partner in cooperation hadn’t been fair about finances. This not only skews competition

but also reduces willingness to collaborate. Also, AirBnb and other similar platforms change the

environment and competition.

A1 and A6 see lack of consistency in actions and words as well as lack of professionalism in planning,

scheduling and executing what has been planned as factors affecting trust negatively.

Other factors

Poor personal relationships were brought about by E5. They pointed out that entrepreneurs with a

long history in the region may have encountered very different kinds of situations.

Poor past experiences regarding level of service in cooperation was mentioned by E2 as a factor that

significantly reduces the willingness for further cooperation if the partner is not ready to act according

to joint values and agreements.

E3 and A5 brought about lack of personal contact as having a negative impact towards cooperation.

They also noted, though, that not everyone sees this similarly, but for many people personal contact

creates a stronger trust towards the partner. A5 brought about the effect of online communication on

formation of trust and personal contact:

“In a way the online world surely has some kind of a negative effect. There are no

chances anymore to be together and to act together. And then, it’s difficult to achieve

that level of trust.” (A5) (Citation 42.)

The importance of communication can be seen also from the answers to the question discussed in this

chapter: even poor communication can lead to distrust in collaboration and hence, ending the

collaboration.

5.5.3. Networks

In this chapter, the importance and benefits of broader networks will be discussed. Networks were

found important by all interviewees. However, there were differing opinions on why networks are

important. Four interviewees (E1, A3, A4, A5) found that networks should have a clear benefit. A5

63

commented, though, that the network doesn’t have to bring financial benefit, but it can e.g. provide

sharing of knowledge. On the other hand, E4 noted that a network might not bring concrete benefit

now but later it may turn out to be useful. Others found networks useful just for thought sharing and

mental support (E1, E2, E3, E4, A6). A5 and A6 also brought about the importance of understanding

the base of companies and services in the region. A1 and A6, mentioned that networks external of the

region are crucial in e.g. following general development within tourism business. A3 described their

view on networks:

”- - we have had a lot of projects in this region related to networking. However, the

networks should bring some financial benefit. - - you should be able to measure the

benefit somehow. If you can’t, I don’t believe in networks at all.” (A4) (Citation 43.)

Knowing the region’s companies and service offering was mentioned by three interviewees (E1, A1,

A6). A6 stressed the importance of knowing the region’s companies and entrepreneurs and their

service offering:

”It’s important to know the people and the stakeholders in the region. Otherwise it’s

difficult to operate or understand the big picture or the possibilities.” (A6) (Citation

44.)

Several interviewees (E1, E2, E3, E4, A1, A2, A5) found sharing information and exchange of

knowledge as very important in networks. Both E3 and E4 brought about that if for some reason they

can’t deliver a service to a customer, they recommend another company in the region. This is seen as

beneficial for the whole region. E4 also mentions that they inform other local companies, if they are

e.g. having a bigger private event and can’t serve other customers during the time and this way, the

other companies can prepare for a higher number of visitors. A5 pointed out that sharing information

is extremely important and it should be a routine in networks. E3 said that they gladly share almost

all information they consider beneficial for the whole region:

”Only a very small part of the information you have is something that you want to

keep to yourself. Usually it is about a momentary competitive advantage. That you

get a kind of a competitive advantage, and everyone does that. In the end, it’s about

doing business.” (E3) (Citation 45.)

E3 also mentioned that if they know about a new company with potential for collaboration, or about

a new development project in the region, they share the information with other companies who they

think may be interested as well.

64

Finding partners for cooperation was brought about by three interviewees (E1, E3, E5). E1, for

instance, found networking important in order to find like-minded entrepreneurs and companies from

a similar field and they have had positive experiences in product-creation.

Sharing resources meant several things for the interviewees (E1, E3, E4, A3, A5). E3, E4 and A5

brought about situations where you need a backup after falling sick or just having too many customers

for your own capacity and might need either a helping hand or borrow equipment. The interviewees

stressed that the focus should be on delivering the service for customers and, as mentioned above,

that helping each other to create good service will be reflected to the reputation of the whole region.

Having a vast network allows for the companies to recommend other companies for visitors. For

example, E3 noted that the visitors might ask for all kinds of services, and if they happen to know

someone who delivers that specific service, they have all served the customer well. E3 added that this

has also created reciprocal recommendations and joint operations.

Being able to ask other entrepreneurs, especially more experienced entrepreneurs, for advice was

brought about by E3 and E4. Being a new entrepreneur, E4 told how helpful the advice from other

entrepreneurs have been. E3 pointed out that the greater your network is, the more likely it is that you

know someone who can give you the advice you in a specific situation need.

Common marketing efforts and projects were also brought about by E1, E4, A3 and A5. This can

mean organizing events and marketing the area or region together, organizing events in the area and

creating projects to develop the area.

E4 found mental support an important aspect not only regarding new entrepreneurs but also those

who have been in the field for a longer time. According to E4, many entrepreneurs are nearing

retirement age and hence, a good network can provide good support. E1 also brought about how

sharing thoughts with other entrepreneurs brings a feeling of security and community.

Hence, in addition to closer collaboration, also broader networks were considered to have several

benefits. Sharing resources with other stakeholders and sharing knowledge and information within

networks was considered beneficial by most interviewees.

5.5.4. Projects

All entrepreneurs and almost all other interviewees had some experience in participating in projects.

The interviewees expressed different opinions about what makes a project functional. Several

65

interviewees (E1, E2, A3, A4, A5) noted, though, that projects are very important because otherwise

there wouldn’t be enough funding for everything.

A4 and A5 brought about how more and more projects emerged in tourism field started when Finland

joined the EU in 1995. After that, new stakeholders started operating in the region, such as

development companies. A5 described the development as follows:

“The field became somewhat scattered, at least the joint operations of the

municipalities. Everyone started to take care of their own patch so to speak. - - it wasn’t

as clear anymore, who does what and how they do it.” (A5) (Citation 46.)

A1 and A5 had the opinion that individual projects are also not necessarily advancing the general

development of the field. Even though tourism is generally seen as a field with a lot of potential for

growth, it’s difficult to realize the potential with individual and unconnected projects with different

focuses. A5 noted that with the projects, different themes of development, such as winter tourism,

nature tourism and culinary tourism started to emerge. E1, E2 and E3 also agreed that though there

has recently been more cooperation in the region, for very long, many stakeholders were only

focusing on growing their own business or organization:

”Everyone has been focusing on their own financial benefit without seeing the bigger

picture of the whole region’s economic benefit. And that’s probably the only

explanation for why it hasn’t been possible to really set this in motion for 20 years

even though the surroundings are just brilliant.” (E3) (Citation 47.)

”Now that there are funds from the EU and other kinds of development funds, everyone

is mainly just applying for them for funding. To be very honest, the funds are applied

for just to finance one’s own activities and to maintain the employees’ jobs.” (A1)

(Citation 48.)

According to the interviewees, projects should bring something concrete (E1, E2, E3, E5). This can

be infrastructure, brochures, website development or other marketing material, or it can also be a

brand. For instance, silence tourism -related projects were mentioned as very useful. E2 hoped that

all projects would have clear goals from the beginning and that there would be different, targeted

projects for companies with different focuses and needs. They also brought about the need to have

regular projects for updating e.g. certain infrastructures that are necessary for tourism, but the

municipalities don’t have finances for.

The planning and execution should be professional (E1, E2, E3, E5, A1, A5). Several interviewees

found it very problematic that many projects seem to exist only to fund some specific companies’ or

organizations’ operations.

66

Five interviewees (A3, E1, E2, E3, E4) found too massive projects as less useful. Massive projects

were described as having a lot of companies in different phases and a large funding. They might be

good for international visibility (E1, E3, E4), but in that case the project should be planned to a

specific target group or region since different companies may also have different target markets, and

some companies may not target to international markets at all (E3, E4). Also, if a project has a lot of

companies in different stages, it’s impossible to fit the project to meet everyone’s needs (E1, E2, E3

and A4). Hence, these kinds of projects may not be so useful to everyone. A4 noted also, though, that

the goal and focus of a project may not be defined in the beginning. The focus is formed in the first

stages according to the participants. This makes it difficult to motivate companies to participate in

projects and pay their portion of the financing.

“It’s often more about just paying someone’s salary and not about what we will

accomplish. - - If you want to offer everything to everyone, it becomes very sprawling.

- - But then again, international marketing is achieved with bigger projects.” (E1)

(Citation 49.)

In addition to professional planning and execution, the leader of a project should have good social

skills (E2), understand the field, the network and financing (A1), take the companies’ and the region’s

focuses and values into account (E2, E5) and plan the use of time properly so that there are e.g. no

useless meetings (E5).

Hence, a general view regarding projects was that all projects should be in accordance to the region’s

strategy as well as the strategies of the entrepreneurs. The projects should be professionally planned

and executed, and they should have concrete goals.

6. Discussion & main findings

6.1. Main findings

The purpose of this study was to examine destination leadership, influential stakeholders as well as

the effect of trust on collaboration within the tourism network of North Karelia. The study was carried

out as an intrinsic case study. Altogether 12 interviews were conducted. Five interviewees are tourism

company CEOs in the region, six interviewees are or have been in central tourism organizations,

67

companies or projects in the region and the 12th interviewee was the CEO of Karelia Expert Oy, the

DMO of the region.

In this chapter, the main findings of the study will be presented according to the research questions.

6.1.1. Destination leadership

How is destination leadership understood among stakeholders?

The context-specific nature of destination leadership as well as a destination’s position in the lifecycle

model, as brought about above, are also reflected in that the results of this study are in part similar to

many of the previous studies but not fully similar to any previous research. Firstly, systemic and

distributed leadership as well as network theory have been recommended and discussed in previous

research as prospective forms of destination leadership (Beritelli & Bieger 2014, Hristov et al. 2018,

Hristov & Ramkissoon 2016, Kozak et al. 2014, Pechlaner et al. 2014, Valente et al. 2014/2015). The

interviewees brought about a lack of leadership, lack of a common vision and unclarity regarding

roles of stakeholders within the network, and hence, no specific type of leadership nor a leader could

be identified. The findings, however, correspond to some extent to the network approach which

attempts e.g. at developing roles, creation of dialogue and formation of relationships based on trust

and reciprocity (Lemmetyinen & Go 2008, van der Zee et al. 2017). Hence, the aspects of this

approach could be applied in the leadership and management of the region’s tourism network.

Secondly, the main components of destination leadership found in this study, as presented in table 2,

are networking, acting according to sustainable values, creation of a vision, long-term planning and

strategy and growing collaboration. To shortly reflect the results of this study to previous research

summarized in figure 1, firstly, the clarity of roles of stakeholders, a joint strategy and goals were

found the main factors affecting destination leadership (Volgger & Pechlaner 2013). Secondly, the

main tasks of destination leaders were found to be development of vision and strategy and

implementation of common projects. Thirdly, the main capabilities of destination leaders were found

to be networking as well as communicating goals and actions. Overall, of the factors presented in

figure 1, acceptance from the followers, prototypicality of the leader and personality and skills of the

leader were found to have no importance within the network. Other significant issues affecting the

current development, as presented in chapter 5.1., are the scattered nature of projects and other actions

68

and the fact that many entrepreneurs will retire in the near future and many companies will need a

successor.

Contrary to some previous research (Beritelli & Laesser 2011, Stilling Blichfeldt et al. 2014),

leadership and having a leader weren’t found the most current issues within the network. In addition,

short-term decision-making came about in this study as an issue affecting the leadership and

development of the destination. On the other hand, this study’s results highlight the importance of

unclarity of roles, scattered projects and a lack of a common vision and goal a unified tourism

network, long-term planning and exchange of information which have been stressed by other research

(e.g. Beritelli & Bieger 2014, Hogg et al. 2012, Valente et al. 2014, Zehrer et al. 2014, Zmys̀lony

2014).

Is there a leader in the region’s tourism network?

The results of this study regarding the question of who the leader of the destination is and whether

there is a leader or not in the tourism network. Hence, as mentioned above, having a leader in the

destination wasn’t found as important as previous research has stressed. In addition to the DMO, the

city of Joensuu and the biggest sales companies came about by different interviewees as having a

leading position. It is also noteworthy that there were three interviewees who think the region doesn’t

have any leadership at the moment.

The results regarding especially the DMO are twofold: on one hand, the expectation is that the DMO

would take the position of a leader. On the other hand, its role was mostly viewed as a forum for

discussion, networking and development. These findings are somewhat similar to Komppula’s (2016)

and Tuohino & Konu’s (2014) studies. Interestingly, all the five interviewed tourism company CEOs

admitted that the DMOs current operations are not fully clear to them.

6.1.2. Influence and influential stakeholders in the region

Influential stakeholders

As can be seen from table 3, no stakeholder in the region was considered as most influential by a

majority of the interviewees. PKO was found most influential by four interviewees, tourism

69

companies by three interviewees and sales companies by two interviewees. These responses are

coherent regarding responses about the factors of influence: PKO was found influential due to its

financial resources and infrastructure and tourism companies due to their expertise. Metsähallitus, in

turn, was found influential by six interviewees due to its natural resources and infrastructure but none

of them found the organization the most influential.

The fact that some stakeholders may have more influence than others in the region was in general

regarded neither negative nor positive. This finding is in line with previous research in that in different

times, different stakeholders may have varying levels of influence at a destination (Stilling Blichfeldt

et al. 2014, Saito & Ruhanen 2017). Five interviewees brought about that it’s only positive that there

are stakeholders who are able to make investments and advance the development. It also corresponds

to Foucault’s (1978) notion of power being in some cases positive and even a source of productivity.

Factors that affect the formation of power

As presented in table 4, financial capital, infrastructure and natural resources, the ability to lead and

network, regulatory power, process power as well as expertise and ability to develop were found the

most significant sources of influence. Projects and their influence in the region’s tourism development

and the network came about in all interviews and this type of influence was categorized as process

power.

Influence wasn’t, though, found to have as big a role as research has suggested (e.g. Beritelli & Bieger

2014, Beritelli & Laesser 2011, Stilling Blichfeldt et al. 2014). However, including the aspect of

power and influence in the study did give it some notions that would otherwise not have been found.

For instance, the use of resources and influence in the context of projects raised a lot of opinions and

criticism. This finding is in line with Saito & Ruhanen’s (2017) study which found stakeholders’

influence to vary in different processes of cooperation. This study found projects to have a significant

influence on tourism development in the region. Similar findings came about as in previous research

about EU funded projects especially in rural areas (Bohlin et al. 2016, Bull 1999, Halkier 2010).

To compare the results to figure 2 which summarizes the sources of power found in previous research,

the economic sources of power, ability to lead, expertise and process power were found as significant

in this study as well. In addition, as mentioned above, networking, ability to develop and regulatory

power were additional findings from this study. Charisma, socioeconomic status, intelligence,

coercive or force and persuasion or manipulation were found to have no importance within the

70

network under study. Moral worth and legitimacy were not mentioned in the interviews in relation to

influence but they were mentioned related to trust and formation of trust. Therefore, it can be

discussed if these factors also add to one’s influence and in this way also advance trust.

Furthermore, the fact that the interviewees didn’t name influential individuals, only companies or

organizations, and the significance of process power within the network highlight the conclusion of

power as a characteristic of a relationship by Foucault (1980) and Stilling Blichfeldt et al. (2014).

6.1.3. The effect of trust on cooperation and factors affecting trust

Trust in cooperation

The results from this study recognize the importance and effect of trust on successful and sustainable

collaboration, and, in addition, the importance of being able to define and communicate the aspects

that one bases their trust on. The significance of trust corresponds to previous research (Cozzolino

2011, Nunkoo et al. 2012, Nunkoo & Ramkissoon 2012, Öberg & Svensson 2010). Cooperation was

found important not only in regard of cooperative actions but also as networks of support and for joint

creation of ideas.

As in previous research by McTiernan et al. (2019), it was found also in this study that trust may be

broken rather quickly: e.g. not acting according to agreed values or even a misunderstanding and lack

of communication can lead to losing one’s trust and even to ending the collaboration. Therefore, the

importance of trust and the importance of communicating one’s values, expectations and prerequisites

for collaboration should be stressed. In addition, open and active communication came about as a tool

for solving conflicts which has been recognized in previous research as well (McTiernan et al. 2019).

Factors affecting trust

The most frequently mentioned factors affecting trust and the formation of trust were interpersonal

competence, open and active communication, integrity and moral character, openness and availability

as well as the courage to act. It should be noted that there were some differences between the

entrepreneurs and other stakeholders: e.g. reciprocity and benevolence/altruism were only mentioned

by entrepreneurs. This finding is noteworthy and corresponds to the conclusions by Pesämaa & Hair

71

(2008); they, however, found reciprocity and mutual economic benefit from the collaboration lead to

interorganizational commitment, whereas the results of this study found interpersonal trust and

commitment as well as integrity and moral character more significant.

Except for the courage to act, the abovementioned factors were also found in previous research as

presented in figure 3. Almost all factors that were presented in figure 3 came about in the interviews.

Business sense, experience on collaboration, discreetness, judgment, existence of a contract, time

frame for the project and resources at hand were found to have little or no importance at all in this

study.

7. Conclusion

7.1. Theoretical conclusions

The unclarity among the interviewees about who is or whether there is any leader in the network, if

a leader is even needed, disconnected projects as well as unclarity of roles in general came about as

the most current issues affecting the destination’s network. In addition, the existence of a joint

strategy and vision as a base for common operations and projects were mentioned frequently. These

findings contribute to the discussion about destination development and destination leadership.

Hence, it can be argued that with or without clear leadership within a tourism network, for sustainable

development of tourism destinations it is crucial for all stakeholders to realize the interdependence of

different stakeholders and to take responsibility in communicating about their roles as well as about

creating a common strategy. These findings can, however, have some similarities to the network

approach (Lemmetyinen & Go 2008, van der Zee et al. 2017). The findings are less similar to shared

or distributed leadership (Benson & Blackman 2011, Hristov et al. 2018, Valente et al. 2014) or

systemic leadership (Beritelli & Bieger 2014) which have received more attention from researchers

than the network approach.

According to the interviewees the development of tourism in the region has been affected by the

emergence of different organizations in the region, such as development companies, as well as

projects and project funding. In addition, the changes the DMO has undergone in the recent years

were seen to have had an effect on the dynamics of the network. These findings are in accordance

with the results by Tinsley & Lynch (2001): in addition to the life cycle model, a destination is

affected by the various organizations and the network’s dynamics and relationships. Komppula

(2016) and Tuohino & Konu (2014) found the roles of Finnish DMOs to vary greatly between regions.

72

This study implicates in addition that a DMO’s role may change during time and should therefore be

examined in its temporal context. It was also found that the changes the DMO of the region under

study has undergone have been confusing for some stakeholders and hence, this finding further

validates the importance of communication within the network.

According to the results of this study, the fact that some stakeholders are more influential than others,

wasn’t found as problematic in this specific region as previous research has suggested (Nunkoo &

Ramkissoon 2012). In addition to financial capital, natural resources and infrastructure, one of the

main findings was the importance of process power. Process power came about in almost all

interviews especially in context of projects and use of project funding, and it was found to increase a

stakeholder’s influence within the network. Almost all interviewees described many of the projects

in the region as scattered and unconnected. However, EU funded projects have been the topic of only

few previous studies (e.g. Bohlin et al. 2016, Bull 1999, Halkier 2010). The usefulness of the goals

of some projects have been questioned in previous research (Bohlin et al. 2016, Bull 1999, Halkier

2010). Based on the findings, well planned projects were found useful. However, this study also partly

questions the usefulness of projects, their goals and the use of project funding and other resources. In

addition, some sources of power, such as networking and regulatory power, that hadn’t been

mentioned in previous research were mentioned in the interviews. Hence, these findings add to the

discussion regarding power in tourism networks.

Lastly, the significance of trust was highlighted on all levels of cooperation which is in accordance

to previous research (Cozzolino 2011, Nunkoo et al. 2012, Nunkoo & Ramkissoon 2012, Öberg &

Svensson 2010). In addition, collaboration and formation of networks was highlighted in general

which also corresponds to previous study (Matilainen et al. 2018). Most interviewees, however, only

discussed trust after they had been asked about its importance in collaboration, even if they found it

crucial for collaboration. In addition, different stakeholders value different aspects or issues and

therefore the concept of trust and its components should always be examined in more detail.

Therefore, this study not only validates the role of trust in cooperation but also highlights the

importance of specifying one’s expectations for cooperation in order to be able to create trust.

73

7.2. Managerial conclusions

Clarity of roles

Clarity of roles appeared to be one of the core issues. It came several times about, for instance, that

the new role of the destination marketing organization (DMO) isn't fully clear to everyone. It was

acknowledged also by the CEO of the DMO that the new role, having the focus on destination

management rather than marketing, is an untypical one for a Finnish DMO. The organization

therefore acknowledged to still be in a transition process. Hence, for all stakeholders to communicate

their mission and focus clearly to other stakeholders would make collaboration and development of

the region easier. This way, the network would be more unified, and a common vision and joint

actions can be planned in a more focused manner.

Also, two interviewees’ comments suggested that not everyone is aware of the services that are

available for entrepreneurs and, therefore, the development companies and other assisting

stakeholders should make their services more known. Some practical issues were brought up with

which the entrepreneurs need assistance, e.g. the nearing retirement of many entrepreneurs of the

region was a concern of many interviewees. Each stakeholder should make their core operations,

mission and services clear and adjust them to the vision and strategy of tourism development in the

region.

Leadership, strategy, vision

Based on the research done, there was no clear consensus on who is leading the tourism network.

However, not everyone found this problematic. The abovementioned clarity of roles as well as

creating and following a joint strategy and vision were found more important issues.

Even though the interviewees admitted that decision-making regarding infrastructure and natural

resources may take a lot of time, more fluent decision-making was still hoped for. This would not

only benefit the entrepreneurs in the region but also potential investors. The abovementioned clarity

to the different stakeholders’ roles would make the creation of a joint strategy easier.

74

Projects

According to the interviewees, unclarity of roles is also reflected in the numerous projects in the

region organized by different stakeholders. It was found, for instance, that project funding and other

resources are not always used in a reasonable way which causes frustration to the participants. In

addition, focused projects seemed the most useful in comparison to projects with a high number of

participants which often become too scattered as they attempt try to please all participants’ wishes.

All interviewees hoped for responsibility and transparency from project organizers. They found, in

addition, that projects should be planned in accordance to a joint strategy and vision, and that project

funding should be used in a reasonable way.

Trust and communication

Trust was found to be crucial issue in regard of all collaboration, and clear and open communication

was the most important component in forming trust; lack of or poor communication was reported to

even lead to loss of trust. Hence, especially in close collaboration, it was hoped that all stakeholders

recognize the importance of trust and communicate openly.

The recent actions of the DMO, such as the joint meetings for all tourism stakeholders, have brought

positive development and advanced networking and collaboration. Hence, more opportunities e.g. for

networking for like-minded stakeholders might help entrepreneurs in finding partners for

collaboration. In addition to close collaboration, sharing knowledge, supporting each other and

exchange of thoughts in broader networks were appreciated. Realization and acknowledgement of

interdependence and the value of cooperation were found important for trust and potential cooperative

actions.

75

Figure 4. Factors affecting destination development.

Figure 4 summarizes the factors that, based on literature and the findings of this study, should be

considered when studying destinations’ networks of stakeholders as well as destination development.

All aspects came about in the study but, as they are context-dependent, their importance may vary in

different destinations and in different times. Communication and interdependence are placed in the

middle since they were highlighted both in the literature as well as in the data of this study (e.g.

Czernek 2013, Volgger & Pechlaner 2013, Zmys̀lony 2014). The circular form of the figure

showcases the ongoing process of destination development. In addition, even though the factors are

presented as separate, they are in constant interconnection and interaction.

Collaboration, networks and

projects

Context / stage of

destination and resources

External factors

Destination leadership

and common vision

Influential actors and sources of influence

Trust Communication

Interdependence

76

7.3. Evaluation of the study and future research

7.3.1. Evaluation of the study

This study focused only on a specific region, and therefore, the results are not generalizable. To

validate the results, similar studies conducted in other regions are needed. The purpose of this study

was to gain general insights to a broad topic and therefore the choice of qualitative research method

was justified and served the purpose. By means of thematic analysis it was possible to find similarities

in the data and hence, this method of data analysis was found useful for this study. In future, however,

studying these topics by collecting a broader data and by utilizing several or different methods of data

collection and analysis would not only add credibility but also allow further understanding regarding

the topic.

As Eriksson & Kovalainen (2008, 121) discuss, an intensive case study can be described as “interplay

or dialogue of theory and empirical data”. During the data collection for this study, e.g. the topic of

projects started to come up in the interviews and hence was included both in the data analysis and the

theory section of the study.

Even though a broader sample may have given more validity, this study gave some valuable insight

about the topics under study especially within the specific destination. As the sample was limited, a

broader and/or a different sample may have brought different nuances to the results. The main

findings were, however, repeated in most interviews. As studying the concepts of destination

leadership alongside with power, trust and collaboration had been called for by several researchers

(e.g. Beritelli & Bieger 2014, Stilling Blichfeldt et al. 2014, McTiernan et al. 2019, Nunkoo & Gursoy

2016), this study brings a contribution to that discussion, and, the simultaneous study of those topics

brings indeed several aspects and nuances in comparison to a study focusing only on one aspect.

Some suggestions for future research are discussed in the following chapter.

The interviewees participated voluntarily. They were aware that their answers will be utilized for this

study and that the interviews were recorded. These matters were explained in the initial e-mail as well

as in the beginning of each interview. Five interviews were conducted face to face and the rest, seven

interviews, on the phone. The initial intention was to interview most informants face to face but, due

to scheduling issues and more flexibility, it was most convenient to interview on the phone. It can be

discussed if having interviewed some face to face and others on the phone has influenced the

interviews or the results. The author of this study, however, didn’t note major differences between

interviews conducted on the phone or face to face.

77

It can be noticed from the study that some interviewees had more to say on the issues under study. It

can be discussed why it is so. The evaluation of this issue is rather subjective, but the author of the

study made some notions about the answers of the interviewees. The topics discussed seemed to raise

a lot of emotions among most tourism company CEOs. All of them explained how their business is

not only a business; for them, it was e.g. about a lifestyle or about sustaining culture. Especially one

tourism company CEO was rather worried about e.g. projects and the assistance that tourism

companies receive and had more to say on those issues than others. Hence, it can be suggested that

an interviewee has more to say on issues that are more personal to them. On the other hand, it may

also be a matter of personality: some interviewees gave long answers after pondering on them for a

while, whereas others responded quite shortly and quickly. Another issue that might have affected an

interviewee’s willingness to respond to some issues was the concern of being recognized from the

study. Lastly, scheduling issues may have influenced a few interviews that had to be rescheduled on

the day of interview. One interview was rescheduled on the day of the interview to a late afternoon,

and the interviewee seemed to hastily give short answers which may imply to a feeling of hurry or

stress.

7.3.2. Suggestions for future research

Based on the findings of this study, including the concepts of power and trust in study of a tourism

network’s dynamics is highly useful. Conducting similar studies in different destinations would

expand the understanding of the topic.

One of the main findings of this study was the influence within the network that projects and those in

charge of projects have. The use of resources and influence in the context of projects raised a lot of

opinions and criticism. This finding is in line with Saito & Ruhanen’s (2017) study which found

stakeholders’ influence to vary in different processes of cooperation. This type of influence was

categorized as process power, and as projects are a major part of tourism development, this aspect

would deserve further study. The research gap has been highlighted in previous study as well (Bohlin

et al. 2016, Bull 1999, Halkier 2010). For instance, a study examining process power and projects in

multiple destinations would bring valuable insights.

78

8. References

Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration Networks, Structural Holes, and Innovation: A Longitudinal Study.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 425-455.

Battaglia, M. P. (2008). Purposive Sample. In: Lavrakas, P. J. (ed.) (2008). Encyclopedia of Survey

Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications Inc. 645.

Benson, A. M. & Blackman, D. (2011). To distribute leadership or not? A lesson from the islands.

Tourism Management, 32, 1141-1149.

Beritelli, P. (2011a). Do actors really agree on strategic issues? Applying consensus analysis of

stakeholder perceptions in tourist destination communities. Tourism Analysis, 16(4),

219-241.

Beritelli, P. (2011b). Tourist destination governance through local elites: Looking beyond

stakeholder the level. (Doctoral dissertation) University of St. Gallen. Retrieved

October 10 https://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/207334/.

Beritelli, P. & Bieger, T. (2014). From destination governance to destination leadership – defining

and exploring the significance with the help of a systemic perspective. Tourism Review,

69(1), 25-46.

Beritelli, P. & Laesser, C. (2011). Power dimensions and influence reputation in tourist destinations:

Empirical evidence from a network of actors and stakeholders. Tourism Management,

32(6), 1299-1309.

Bligh, M. C. & Schyns, B. (2007). The Romance Lives On: Contemporary Issues Surrounding the

Romance of Leadership. Leadership, 3(3), 343-360.

Bohlin, M., Brandt, D. & Elbe, J. (2016) Tourism as a vehicle for regional development in peripheral

areas – myth or reality? A longitudinal case study of Swedish regions. European

Planning Studies, 24(10), 1788-1805.

Bowen, D., Zubair, S. & Altinay, L. (2017). Politics and Tourism Destination Development: The

Evolution of Power. Journal of Travel Research, 56(6), 725-743.

Boxberg, M., Komppula, R., Korhonen, S. & Mutka, P. (2001). Matkailutuotteen markkinointi- ja

jakelukanavat. Helsinki: Edita.

Buffa, F., Beritelli, P. & Martini, U. (2019. Project networks and the reputation network in a

community destination: Proof of the missing link. Journal of Destination Marketing &

Management, 11, 251-259.

Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism Management, 21,

97-116.

79

Bull, B. (1999). Encouraging Tourism Development Through the EU Structural Funds: A Case Study

of the Implementation of EU Programmes on Bornholm. International Journal of

Tourism Research, 1(3) 149-165.

Burak, O. & Bashshur, M. R. (2013). Followership, leadership and social influence. The Leadership

Quarterly, 24, 919-934.

Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behaviour,

22, 345-423.

Butler, R. (2004). The Tourism Area Life Cycle in the Twenty-First Century. In: Lew, A. A., Hall,

C. M. & Williams, A. M. (2004). A Companion to Tourism. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

159-169.

Collinson, D. (2005). Dialectics of leadership. Human Relations, 58(11), 1419-1442.

Collinson, D., Smolović Jones, O. & Grint, K. (2018). ‘No more heroes’: Critical Perspectives on

Leadership Romanticism. Organization Studies, 39(11), 1625-1647.

Conger, J. A. (1998). Qualitative Research as the Cornerstone Methodology for Understanding

Leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 9(1), 107-121.

Cozzolino, P. J. (2011). Trust, cooperation, and equality: A psychological analysis of the formation

of social capital. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 302-320.

Crevani, L., Lindgren, M. & Packendorff, J. (2010). Leadership, not leaders: On the study of

leadership as practices and interactions. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26, 77-

86.

Crossman, B. & Crossman, J. (2011). Conceptualising followership – a review of the literature.

Leadership, 7(4), 481-497.

Czakon, W. & Czernek, K. (2016). The role of trust-building mechanisms in entering into network

coopetition: The case of tourism networks in Poland. Industrial Marketing

Management, 57, 64-74.

Dyer, J. H. & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of

interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4),

660-679).

ELY-keskus (2019). Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment. Retrieved

November 12 2019 https://www.ely-keskus.fi/en/web/ely-en/.

Eriksson & Kovalainen (2008). Qualitative Methods in Business Research. Sage Publications Ltd.

Farquhar, J. D. (2012). Developing Your Case Study Research Strategy. In: Farquhar, J. D. (2012).

Case Study Research for Business. SAGE Publications. 65-83.

Fairhurst, G. T. (2001). Dualisms in leadership research. In F.M. Jablin & L.L. Putnam (Eds), The

new handbook of organizational communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 379–439.

80

Florén, H. & Tell, J. (2003). The emergent prerequisites of managerial learning in small firm

networks. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(3), 292-307.

Foucault, M. (1980) Selected Interviews and Other Writings. Retrieved October 15

https://monoskop.org/images/5/5d/Foucault_Michel_Power_Knowledge_Selected_Int

erviews_and_Other_Writings_1972-1977.pdf

Ford, J. & Harding, N. (2018). Followers in leadership theory: Fiction, fantasy and illusion.

Leadership, 14(1), 3-24.

Graen, G. B. & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of

leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-

level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.

Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 13(4), 423–52.

Halkier, H. (2010) EU and Tourism Development: Bark or Bite? Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality

and Tourism, 10(2), 92-106.

Haven-Tang, C. & Jones, E. (2012). Local leadership for rural tourism development: A case study of

Adventa, Monmouthshire, UK. Tourism Management Perspectives, 4, 28-35.

Hogg, M. A. (2001). A Social Identity Theory of Leadership. Personality and Social Psychology

Review, 5(3), 184-200.

Hogg A. M., van Knippenberg, D. and Rast, D. E. (2012). The social identity theory of leadership:

Theoretical origins, research findings, and conceptual developments. European Review

of Social Psychology, 23, 258-304.

Hristov, D., Minocha, S. & Ramkissoon, H. (2018). Transformation of destination leadership

networks. Tourism Management Perspectives, 28, 239-250.

Hristov, D. & Ramkissoon, H. (2016). Leadership in Destination Management Organisations. Annals

of Tourism Research, 61, 230-234.

Jamal, T. B. & Getz, D. (1995). Collaboration theory and community tourism planning. Annals of

Tourism Research, 22(1), 186-204.

Juusela, J. (2009). Matkailu aluepolitiikan osana. In: Suomen Matkailijayhdistys SMY ry /

Turistföreningen i Finland TFF rf / Suomen Matkailun Seniorit (2009). Tunne Maasi.

Suomen matkailun kehitys ja kehittäjiä. Tallinna: Tallinna Raamatutrükikoda. 147-149.

Karelia Expert Matkailupalvelu Oy (2019). Yrityksen historia. Retrieved November 10 2019

http://www.kareliaexpert.fi/tietoa-meista/historia/.

Komppula, R. (2005). Pursuing customer value in tourism – a rural tourism case study. Journal of

Hospitality & Tourism, 3(2), 83-104).

Komppula, R. (2014). The role of individual entrepreneurs in the development of competitiveness for

a rural tourism destination – A case study. Tourism Management, 40, 361-371.

81

Komppula, R. (2016). The role of different stakeholders in destination development. Tourism Review,

71(1), 67-76.

Kozak, M., Volgger, M. & Pechlaner, H. (2014). Destination leadership: leadership for territorial

development. Tourism Review, 69(3), 169-172.

Lemmetyinen, A. (2010). The Role of the DMO in Creating Value in EU-funded Tourism Projects.

Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 10(2), 129-152.

Lemmetyinen, A. & Go, F. M. (2009). The key capabilities required for managing tourism business

networks. Tourism Management 30, 31–40.

Lidman, K. (2009) Kuntien matkailutoimi. In: Suomen Matkailijayhdistys SMY ry / Turistföreningen

i Finland TFF rf / Suomen Matkailun Seniorit: Tunne Maasi. Suomen matkailun kehitys

ja kehittäjiä. Tallinna: Tallinna Raamatutrükikoda. 150-152.

Maak, T. (2007). Responsible Leadership, Stakeholder Engagement, and the Emergence of Social

Capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 329-343.

Matilainen, A. & Lähdesmäki, M. (2014). Nature-based tourism in private forests: Stakeholder

management balancing the interests of entrepreneurs and forest owners? Journal of

Rural Studies, 35, 70-79.

Matilainen, A., Suutari, T., Lähdesmäki, M. & Koski, P. (2018). Management by boundaries –

Insights into the role of boundary objects in a community-based tourism development

project. Tourism Management 67, 284-296.

McTiernan, C., Thomas, R. & Jameson, S. (2019). Focusing on Knowledge Exchange: The Role of

Trust in Tourism Networks. In: Fayos-Solá, E. & Cooper, C. (2019). The Future of

Tourism. Springer International Publishing AG. 301-314.

Metsähallitus (2019a). Kolin historia. Retrieved November 11 2019

https://www.luontoon.fi/koli/historia.

Metsähallitus (2019b). Luontomatkailuyritysten toiminta suojelualueilla. Retrieved 11 2019

http://www.metsa.fi/fi/luontomatkailuyrityksetsuojelualueilla.

Metsähallitus (2019c). Metsähallituksen organisaatio. Retrieved November 11 2019

http://www.metsa.fi/organisaatiojatoimintatapa.

Metsähallitus (2019d) (n.d.). SUPER – Sustainability Under Pressure: Environmental Resilience in

Natural and Cultural Heritage Areas with Intensive Recreation. Retrieved November

11 2019 http://www.metsa.fi/fi/web/guest/super.

Metsäntutkimuslaitos (2005) (n.d.). Kolin kansallispuisto 2010 – Hoito- ja käyttösuunnitelma 2003-

2010. Joensuu: Painokanava Oy. Retrieved November 11 2019 https://www.ukko-

kolinystavat.fi/media/Kolin%20suunnitelmat/kolikprunkosuunnitelma.pdf.

82

Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E. & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic Analysis: Striving to

meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1-

13.

Nunkoo, R. & Gursoy, D. (2016). Rethinking the Role of Power and Trust in Tourism Planning.

Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 25(4), 512-522.

Nunkoo, R. & Ramkissoon, H. (2012). Power, Trust, Social Exchange and Community Support.

Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 997-1023.

Nunkoo, R., Ramkissoon, H. & Gursoy, D. (2012). Public trust in tourism institutions. Annals of

Tourism Research, 39(2), 1538-1564.

Owusu-Bempah, J. (2014). How Can We Best Interpret Effective Leadership? The Case For Q

Method. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly 2014, 5(3), 47-58.

Pechlaner, H., Kozak, M. & Volgger, M. (2014). Destination leadership: a new paradigm for tourist

destinations? Tourism Review, 69(1), 1-9. Editorial introduction.

Pesämaa, O. & Hair Jr., J. F. (2008). Cooperative Strategies for Improving the Tourism Industry in

Remote Geographic Regions: An Addition to Trust and Commitment Theory with one

Key Mediating Construct. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 8(1), 48-

61.

Pike, S: & Page, S. J. (2014). Destination Marketing Organizations and destination marketing: A

narrative analysis of the literature. Tourism Management, 41, 202-227.

Pohjois-Karjalan maakuntaliitto (2017). POKAT 2021 – Pohjois-Karjalan maakuntaohjelma 2018-

2021. Joensuu: LaserMedia Oy.

Pohjois-Karjalan maakuntaliitto (2019) (n.d.). Joustava EU-rahoitus. Retrieved November 11 2019

https://www.pohjois-karjala.fi/web/guest/eakr-rahoitus

Reed, M. (1997). Power relations and community-based tourism planning. Annals of Tourism

Research, 24(3), 566-591.

Saarinen, J. (2006). Traditions of sustainability in tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(4).

1121-1140.

Saito, H. & Ruhanen, L. (2017). Power in tourism stakeholder collaborations: Power types and power

holders. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 31, 189-196.

Sheehan, L., Ritchie, J. R. B. & Hudson, S. (2007). The Destination Promotion Triad: Understanding

Asymmetric Stakeholder Interdependencies Among the City, Hotels, and DMO.

Journal of Travel Research, 46, 64-74.

Silva, A. (2014). What is Leadership? Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 8(1), 1-5.

Stilling Blichfeldt, B., Hird, J., & Kvistgaard, P. (2014). Destination leadership and the issue of

power. Tourism Review, 69(1), 74-86.

83

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S. & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-

discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404.

Tilastokeskus (2020a) (n.d.). Micro enterprise. Retrieved June 10 2020

http://www.stat.fi/meta/kas/mikroyritys_en.html.

Tilastokeskus (2020b) (n.d.). Small and medium enterprises. Retrieved June 10 2020

http://www.stat.fi/meta/kas/pienet_ja_keski_en.html.

Tilastokeskus (2020c) (n.d.). Väestö. Retrieved June 10 2020

http://www.tilastokeskus.fi/tup/suoluk/suoluk_vaesto.html#V%C3%A4est%C3%B6ti

etoja%20maakunnittain.

Tilastokeskus (2020d) (n.d.). Yritysten toimipaikat toimialoittain ja maakunnittain. Retrieved June

10 2020

http://pxnet2.stat.fi/PXWeb/pxweb/fi/StatFin/StatFin__yri__alyr/statfin_alyr_pxt_11d

b.px/table/tableViewLayout1/?loadedQueryId=6ee6078c-2563-4803-bd3a-

06f5b54c382d&timeType=item

Tinsley, R. & Lynch, P. (2001). Small tourism business networks and destination development.

Hospitality Management, 20, 367-378.

Tuohino, A. & Konu, H. (2014). Local stakeholders’ views about destination management: who are

leading tourism development? Tourism Review, Vol. 69(3), 202-215.

Valente, F.J., Dredge, D. & Lohmann, G. (2014). Leadership capacity in two Brazilian regional

tourism organisations. Tourism Review, 69(1), 10-24.

Valente, F., Dredge, D. & Lohmann, G. (2015). Leadership and governance in regional tourism.

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4, 127-136.

Van der Zee, E., Gerrets, A.-M. & Vanneste, D. (2017). Complexity in the governance of tourism

networks: Balancing between external pressure and internal expectations. Journal of

Destination Marketing & Management, 6, 296-308.

Van der Zee, E. & Vanneste, D. (2015). Tourism networks unravelled; a review of the literature on

networks in tourism management studies. Tourism Management Perspectives, 15, 46-

56.

Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R. & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership, Followership, and Evolution: Some

Lessons from the Past. American Psychologist, 63(3), 182-196.

VisitFinland (2020) (n.d.). Tilastotietokanta Rudolf. Retrieved June 8 2020

http://visitfinland.stat.fi/PXWeb/pxweb/fi/VisitFinland/VisitFinland__Alueellinen_ma

tkailutilinpito/060_amtp_tau_106.px/.

VisitKarelia Oy (2020) (n.d.). Etusivu. Retrieved June 9 2020. https://dmo.visitkarelia.fi/.

84

Volgger, M. & Pechlaner, H. (2014). Requirements for destination management organizations in

destination governance: Understanding DMO success. Tourism Management, 41, 64-

75.

Zehrer, A. & Hallmann, K. (2015). A stakeholder perspective on policy indicators of destination

competitiveness. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, 4, 120-126.

Zehrer, A. Raich, F., Siller, H. & Tschiderer, F. (2014). Leadership networks in destinations. Tourism

Review, 69(1), 59-73.

Zmys̀lony, P. (2014). Identification of leadership in emerging tourist destinations. Tourism Review,

69(3), 173-186.

Öberg, P. & Svensson, T. (2010). Does Power Drive out Trust? Relations between Labour Market

Actors in Sweden. Political Studies, 58(1), 143-166.

85

Appendices

Appendix 1. Outline of interview questions.

1. The interviewee’s background

1.1. The interviewee’s position and history in the region’s tourism network

1.2. The interviewee’s cooperation with other stakeholders

2. Perceptions of destination leadership in the region

2.1. How does the interviewee define destination leadership?

2.2. Does the interviewee recognize a leader in the region? If not, is there a

stakeholder that should or could take the position of a leader?

3. Perceptions of power within the tourism network in the region

3.1. What stakeholder(s) does the interviewee consider as most influential?

3.2. What makes a tourism stakeholder influential?

4. Trust and cooperation

4.1. What factors affect cooperation?

4.2. How does trust affect cooperation?

The interviewees could also express any thoughts they had related to the discussed topics.

86

Appendix 2. List of original citations in Finnish.

Citation 1.

”se peli tulee hankalammaksi mitä enemmän niitä [tahoja] on. - - kun nämä rahoitukset ovat sellasia

joilla luodaan kuitenkin tietyllä tavalla organisaatioon toimintaedellytyksiä, niin niitä haetaan sitten

vähän itselle, ja sitten siinä se yhteistyö ja roolittaminen ei oo niin hyvää” (A1)

Citation 2.

”jossain vaiheessa oli sellanen hyvinkin Pohjois-Karjala, että puhuttiin vaan PKsta, mut nyt on taas

vähän alueellistunut asiat, mikä on ihan turhaa.” (E1)

Citation 3.

”2010-luvulle mennessä meillä oli jo, muistelen että saattoi olla jo nelisenkymmentä hanketta

maakunnassa, jotka koski matkailua. - - mun mielestä on joutunu aika lailla sen kanssa takkuamaan,

että mikä se on se juttu, että mitä tässä nyt tehdään, kuka tekee ja millä resursseilla tehdään.” (A5)

Citation 4.

”yhteistyön tekeminen oli siinä mielessä kauhean mielekästä, että jokainen tiesi, että omistaan

pannaan rahaa siihen, että työtä tehtiin sitten niiden resurssien puitteissa.” (A5)

Citation 5.

”kun nyt eläköityy hirveetä vauhtia yrittäjät. Sen takia pitäisi herätä siihen, että nämä

matkailuyritykset saisivat jatkajan.” (E5)

Citation 6.

”Miun mielestä [yhdistysten] tulis huolehtia omistaan, ja just siihen jaksamiseen liittyen, että oon tosi

paljon kuullut, että alkaa olla vähän väsähtänyttä ja on eläkeikäisiäkin jo. Että just autetaan tavallaan

siihen, jos on omistajanvaihdosta tai yrityksen myyntiä tulossa” (E4)

Citation 7.

”Mutta ihan itse se pitää tehdä se markkinointityö. Ja sitä ei ihan kauheen moni sitten ollut tehnyt. -

- Ja siinä oli varmaan se suurin syy minkä takia tänne ei haluttu kilpailua oli se, että pelättiin, että

viedään ne viimeisetkin asiakkaat.” (E3)

Citation 8.

”- - onhan 90-luvulta asti yritetty tosi paljon kaikennäköistä, mutta tavallaan just tää hanke-elämä,

kuin just tää rahojen kokoaikainen pula ja puute, ja sit semmonen et sä et aina voi viedä asioita

loppuun saakka. Niin ehkä se heijastuu tosi moneen asiaan. (E1)

87

Citation 9.

”Mutta siinä se sydän kuitenkin on, että niitä [matkailuyrityksiä] pitäs tavalla tai toisella, kaikilla

näillä toiminnoilla edesauttaa, että syntyis niitä, ja se on se fokus ja pitäis olla se fokus.” (A1)

Citation 10.

”- - johtamisessahan tärkeetä on et sulla on hyvä verkosto ympärillä. - - Ja nimenomaan et sen oman

verkoston jäsenet on myös tapaavat ja verkostoituvat toistensa kanssa, et on myös se linkki siinä eri

ihmisten ja verkostojen välillä. (E1)

Citation 11.

”- - mun mielestä se [päätöksenteko] on vähän lyhytnäköistä täällä, ja sitten kun siinä on eri

viranomaisia tai kuntapäättäjiä, niin se helposti menee siihen, että investoijilla ei hermo pidä, ja se

kattoo sitten johonkin muualle, missä tapahtuu nopeammin” (A6)

Citation 12.

”- - tässä alueella kun on 20v kaivettu poteroita niin - - täällä tarvitaan tähän alkuun vähän

suoraviivasempaa ja käskevämpää toimintaa. Tää [alue] tarvii aika vahvaa johtamista, että tää

saahaan käyntiin. (E3)

Citation 13.

”- - pitää muistaa aina se et mikä rahamäärä on käytettävissä, ja tää realismi, et pitää muistaa sekin,

että minkälainen on maakunnan yrityspohja. Paljon pieniä yrityksiä, niin pystytäänkö silloin

yrittämään miljoonaa asiakasta? (A3)

Citation 14.

”- - meiltä löytyy rohkeutta ja tavallaan innovatiivisuutta tehdä uusia asioita. Ja tavallaan kehittää

toimialaa huomisesta tai ylihuomisesta lähtien, ei sieltä -80-luvulta tai -70-luvulta. Että uskon kyllä

tällaiseen juttuun, mutta että tää nykyinen tilanne on vähän sellanen, että meillä ei ole vielä sitä

näkymää, että tänne vois vaikkapa ulkomaalaisia sijoittajia tai operaattoreita tulla.” (A6)

Citation 15.

”- - varmaan Karelia Expertillä on siinä oma roolinsa just näissä tapaamisissa ja organisoinnissa. Se

on kuitenkin semmonen foorumi koko ajan olemassa” (A4)

Citation 16.

”meillä ei oo tällä hetkellä sitä [johtajaa], varsinkaan johtajuutta. Et se pitäs ottaa tosi tiukasti - - Just

se tiekartta käteen, ja et mihin suuntaan ollaan menossa.” (E1)

88

Citation 17.

”Että ehkä sellasesta maakunnallisesta matkailumarkkinoinnista tai matkailujohtamisesta, niin en tiiä

nyt, että onko semmosta enää olemassa.” (A5)

Citation 18.

”Sen [yhteistyön] eteen aina sanotaan, että se on täällä ihan hyvää ja mutkatonta, mutta kyllä minä

sanon, että se yhteistyön kehittäminen edelleen tulokselliseen suuntaan, niin siinä on vielä tekemistä.

Ja sitten ne roolit pitäs vaan tietyllä tavalla hyväksyä tarkemmin.” (A1)

Citation 19.

”meillä on niin pieniä moni näistä yrityksistä, että - - pikkusen voisi silti panostaa enemmän siihen

kehittämistyöhön. - - Kun mie tiiän että monilla se taloudellinen tilanne on tosi tiukkaa, että ei voi

kauheesti edes ehdottaa että tekisitkö tätä. Kun tietää, että se menee siihen jokapäiväisen leivän

hankkimiseen se energia. Mutta jos sen verran vois kasvaa, että löytäis sen oman polun.” (A4)

Citation 20.

”- - se tekee hallaa meiän matkailulle, mistä me haetaan sitä aitoutta ja uniikkiutta ja - - Mutta siis se,

että rahalla tällä hetkellä on tosi iso vaikutus ja niin pitää ollakin, eihän tää muuten toimi, jos ei oo

sellasia toimijoita ollenkaan, joilla on sitä rahaa ylläpitää noita kiinteistöjä ja ylläpitää sitä toimintaa.

Että mikään ei oo niin mustavalkoista.” (E1)

Citation 21.

”- - olkoon se mitä tahansa kehittämistoimenpidettä tai muuta, niin se tarkoittaa yleensä sitä, että kun

meillä on yksi liikevaihdoltaan iso toimija, niin aina siihen katsotaan ensin, ja sitten muita ei oikein

olekaan kantamassa sitä kehitysvastuuta sieltä” (A6)

Citation 22.

”Mut se ei ehkä näy meille hirveesti. He [Karelia Expert Oy] ei aukikirjoita sitä mitä he tekee ja näin.

Että emmehän me tiedä mitä kaikkea he tuolla kulisseissa vääntää ja kääntää. - - sehän ois tosi hienoa,

että tietäs vähän koko ajan, että missä ollaan menossa.” (E1)

Citation 23.

”aika moni firma sanoi mullekin että VisitKarelian kanssa ei kannata tehä mitään, koska ei ne tuo

asiakkaita ollenkaan. Eihän VisitKarelian tehtävä ole tuoda asiakkaita. Ei sen tehtävä ole markkinoida

kenenkään yritystä. Sen firman tehtävä on ihan itse markkinoida sitä firmaansa. Ja sitten VisitKarelia

tekee jotakin siihen, ja kaikki on plussaa mitä se tekee siihen.” (E3)

89

Citation 24.

”- - se on oltava olemassa. Se on tärkeä luontomatkailun mahdollistaja meillä Suomessa, mutta heillä

tällä hetkellä laahaa jäljessä palvelurakenteiden ylläpitäminen, - - se käyttäjäkunta on räjähtäny käsiin

eikä he pysty reagoimaan” (E2)

Citation 25.

”niitä [EU- ja kehittämisrahoja] hakee [toimijat] vähän oman toimintansa rahoittamiseen ja ihmisten

työpaikkojen pitämiseen. Kun sen näkökulman pitäisi olla, että miten sitä liiketoimintaa kehitetään,

mikä on kehittämisyhtiöiden rooli, heidänhän pitäs olla sparraamassa ja auttamassa yrityksiä - -” (A1)

Citation 26.

”- - matkailua ei ole ilman matkailuyrityksiä. Mutta kun meillä on niin hirmu hajaantunut ja pieniä

matkailuyrityksiä, jotka ovat osa-aikaisiakin osa vielä, niin ne tarvii sitten vielä enemmän tämmöistä

organisaatioapua.” (A1)

Citation 27.

”- - jos myyntiyhtiön edustaja kertoo asiakkaiden toiveita ja että mihin toivotaan panostuksia, niin

sillä viestillähän on painavampi arvo. - - Että mieluummin sitten kuuntelee sitä, joka myy, että mikä

myy, ja panostaa sitten siihen.” (E2)

Citation 28.

”Toisaalta tietysti asiakkailla on valtaa, jos sitä kautta miettii. Yleiset trendit pitkälti vaikuttaa, mihin

ihmiset lähtee, et eihän se aina oo välttämättä siitä kohteesta kiinni.” (A4)

Citation 29.

”Eli se raha tulee sillä kävijämääräluvulla. No, hyvä jos jollakin jutulla. Jollainhan se pitää määrittää,

että mihin sitä rahaa laitetaan. Mutta nyt pitäisi ehkä olla niin, että ei se kävijämäärä vaan se, että on

tyhjää ja sopisi kävijöitä.” (E5)

Citation 30.

”Semmosella jolla on pelimerkkejä niin se niinkun, voi kohteliaisuussyistä kysellä ja pyydellä vähän,

mut sit se lopulta käskee. Ja sitä tää alue tällä hetkellä tarvii. Tää tarvii aika vahvaa johtamista, että

tää saahaan käyntiin.” (E3)

Citation 31.

”Heillä on alueellisen kehittämisen kannalta ihan valtavan iso rooli. - -he käytännössä määrittää sen,

et miten täällä tehää luontomatkailua luonnonpuistoissa ja tehäänkö sitä.” (E3)

90

Citation 32.

”- - kilpailuhan on koventunut, siitähän se varmasti johtuu hyvinkin paljon. Että ei me välttämättä

olla huononnuttu mitenkään, mutta toisaalta me ollaan jääty monesti, nimenomaan investoinneissa

ollaan monesti jääty jälkeen meiän naapurimaakuntia aika paljon.” (A5)

Citation 33.

Koko ajan tehää yhteistyötä ja se perustuu yhteistyölle se elämä. Mä olisin lopettanut yrittäjyyden jo

ajat sitten, jos ei ois verkostoa. -- Ilman sellasta yhteistyöverkostoa ja ilman yhteistyötä, niin ei täällä

kukaan pysy järjissään. (E1)

Citation 34.

Lähtökohtaisesti sanon aina kyllä. Katotaan mitä voidaan tehä ja palaverin jälkeen päätetään tehäänkö

vai ei. Sattuuko meiän asiat yhteen. - - välillä on ollut silleen, että oon saattanut sanoa, että mulle tää

ei käy, mutta kysypä tolta. - - Jolloinka sitten saahaan sellasta vähän että, vaikka me ei tehtäistään

kimpassa töitä niin me voidaan silti jeesiä toista. (E3)

Citation 35.

”Jotkut ihmiset vaan ovat avoimempia ja näkevät sen ja pystyvät laajentamaan yhdessä ja löytämään

vinkkejä sen roolin ehkä kasvattamiseksi, kasvamaan siinä, ja hyvässä yhteistyössä se yhteisen

tekemisen arvo nousee vähän isommaksi, kun että jokainen tekis omaansa.” (A1)

Citation 36.

”- - se yhteistyö aina sen aikaa toimii, kun on joku hanke. Mutta sitten kun se loppuu, niin jos ei oo

mitään yhteistä taloudellista nimittäjää, niin kyllä se tahtoo sitten lopahtaa.” (A4)

Citation 37.

”- - jos on esimerkiks 5n toimijan verkosto, niin kukaan ei niistä yksin pysty tekemään nyt esimerkiksi

matkailullisesti jonkun kokonaisuuden. Voi olla, että kolmekaan ei pystyis tekemään sitä, mutta ne

viidestään pystyy tekemään jonkun. (A5)

Citation 38.

”- - mä itse näen sen [luottamuksen] niin keskeisenä asiana, ettei mulla tule mieleen edes mainita sitä.

Mutta luottamus on äärimmäisen tärkeää ylipäänsä kaikessa, se on hirveän tärkeää kaikessa

liiketoiminnassa. Jos sulla ei oo luottamusta, niin eihän sulla oo mitään silloin. - - Se toimijoiden

tunteminen ja luottamus on kyllä äärimmäisen tärkeitä asioita.” (A5)

91

Citation 39.

”Ennen ku mitään aloitetaan niin se kyllä hyvin selkeästi tehdään selväksi, että minkälaiset ajatukset

meillä on yhteistyöstä, luottamuksesta ja avoimuudesta yhteistyössä ja sen mukaan on

yhteistyökumppaneita valikoitu.” (E3)

Citation 40.

”No täysin keskeinen, että sä oot johdonmukainen täällä ja sä pystyt puhumaan joka foorumilla sen

saman tarinan, niin se on tietysti kaikista tärkeintä. Että se, koska pienet on piirit joka tapauksessa,

kattoi niitä mistä tahansa suunnasta, niin se ei oikeestaan kestä semmosta harha-askelta.” (A6)

Citation 41.

”- - pystyy oikein hyvin suosittelemaan [asiakkaalle toista yritystä], jos itse ei jotain pysty hoitamaan,

niin ohjataan sitten toisille yrityksille tietenkin mieluiten. Että ei ole sellaista kateellisuutta, että jos

me ei pystytä tätä ottamaan, niin ei sitten kukaan muukaan.” (E4)

Citation 42.

”Siinä mielessä nettimaailma varmasti tekee tietynlaista hallaa -- ei ole enää mahdollisuuksia olla

yhdessä ja tehdä yhdessä. Niin silloinhan se luottamuskaan ei sille tasolle varmaan pääse asettumaan”

(A5)

Citation 43.

”- - meillä on hyvin paljon ollu täs maakunnassa verkostoitumishankkeita jne, mutta niiden pitäs olla

sellasia, että eurot oikeesti liikkuu. - - se hyöty pitää olla jollain tavalla mitattavissa. Jos sitä ei pysty

tekemään, niin en usko verkostoihin ollenkaan.” (A4)

Citation 44.

”- - on tärkeää tuntea ihmiset ja toimijat tältä alueelta, että on vaikeaa muuten toimia tai ei ymmärrä

kokonaisuutta, tai mahdollisuuksia.” (A6)

Citation 45.

”- - hyvin pieni osa tiedosta on sellaista minkä mielellään pitää itsellään ja yleensähän siinä on joku

hetkellinen taloudellinen etu. Että saa vähän niin kuin taloudellista etulyöntiasemaa ja kaikkihan sitä

tekee. Se on lopulta liiketoimintaa.” (E3) “

Citation 46.

”Se [matkailukenttä] sitten ehkä hajosi tietyllä tavalla, ainakin tämä kuntien yhteinen tekeminen, että

jokaisen piti ruveta huolehtimaan siitä omasta tontistaan. - - ei ollut niin selkeää, että kuka tekee ja

mitä tekee ja miten tekee.” (A5)

92

Citation 47.

”- - jokainen on hakenut omaa taloudellista etuaan näkemättä sellasta suurempaa kuvaa alueen

taloudellisesta edusta. Ja se on oikeastaan varmaan ainoa mikä voi selittää sen, että tätä ei oo saatu

20 vuoteen käyntiin, vaikka täällä on ihan huiman hienot fasiliteetit.” (E3)

Citation 48.

”- - kun on näitä EU-rahoja ja on kehittämisrahoja, niin vähän jokainen sit hakee lähinnä niitä. Jos

nyt rehellisesti sanotaan, niin niitä hakee vähän oman toimintansa rahoittamiseen ja ihmisten

työpaikkojen pitämiseen.” (A1)

Citation 49.

”- - enemmän korostuu vaan se, et tässä maksetaan vaan jollekin palkkaa, eikä se et mitä me saadaan

aikaseks. - - pitää olla kaikille kaikkea, niin onhan ne myös rönsyileviä. - - Mut siis kyllähän se sit

isommilla hankkeilla, niillä nimenomaan sitä kv-markkinointia tehään.” (E1)