Module 7: Group Discussion

Governance Matters

Collaborative Governance Concepts for Successful Network Leadership

Chris Silvia1

Abstract State and local governments across the United States have increasingly utilized collaborative, interorganizational approaches to the delivery of public services. This shift in governance structure often necessitates that public managers not only lead the agency in which they are employed, but also work within, and often lead, a network. These two different contexts in which public managers operate require different managerial and leadership approaches. This article discusses some of the differences between hierarchical leadership and network leadership, important aspects of collaborative leadership, and the leadership behaviors that are considered effective within collaborative governance structures. The article concludes with a discussion of some best practices for collaborative leadership, including the formation of joint commitment, the identification of resources, the creation of a shared understanding, the achievement of stakeholder support, and the establishment of trust.

Keywords collaborative networks, public services, state and local governments

Introduction

Over the last twenty years, public management

scholars have noted the increase in the use of

collaborative networks among state and local

governments. For example, Milward and

Provan note that governance is changing from

hierarchical or command-and-control mechan-

isms to public services that are jointly produced

by multiple government, for-profit and nonpro-

fit agencies since no one organization can

provide all of the services that are needed

(2000). Most research in this area has taken a

network-level approach to understanding colla-

borative service delivery. Scholars have asked

questions such as: Why are networks formed?

How networks change over time? What are the

barriers faced by networks and how are they

overcome? What governance structures are

employed in networks? Should networks be

directed from the top-down or the bottom-up?

Frederickson and Smith (2003) argued that

governments have become less hierarchical and

more reliant upon other systems and structures

for the delivery of public services. They believe

that the study of public administration must

shift toward the study of collaborative service

delivery. Along these lines, students of intergo-

vernmental relations stress the importance of

1Public Administration Department, University of Kansas,

Lawrence, KS, USA

Corresponding Author:

Chris Silvia, Public Administration Department, University

of Kansas, 1445 Jayhawk Boulevard, 4060 Wescoe Hall,

Lawrence, KS 66045, USA

Email: [email protected]

State and Local Government Review 43(1) 66-71 ª The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0160323X11400211 http://slgr.sagepub.com

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2015slg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

vertical and horizontal relationships among

levels of government in collaboration. Often

these relationships have developed between dif-

ferent levels of government, as higher levels have

found themselves providing fiscal support for gov-

ernmental programs while lower levels of govern-

ment, and even private and nonprofit actors, have

been charged with the responsibility of program

planning, implementation, and management. As

a result, the boundaries delineating each level of

government’s responsibility, authority, and activ-

ity in providing services have become blurred.

While the network-level approach to the

study of networks is important, the issue of

leadership and management within these colla-

borative ventures has largely been overlooked.

The shift to collaborative arrangements to

deliver services has changed the job of public

administrators who now find that they are

working in and leading networks (Kettl 1996).

Because managers in networked settings do not

supervise, traditional management and leader-

ship techniques are often not appropriate in the

collaborative setting. As a result, public sector

management in the twenty-first century will

need to better understand the skills, processes,

structures, tools, and technology needed for

working across organizational boundaries

(Huxham and Vangen 2000b). We know, how-

ever, little about network leadership and man-

agement. This is despite Agranoff and

McGuire’s (2001) claim a decade ago that

‘‘increasingly, the capacities required to operate

successfully in network settings are different

from the capacities needed to succeed at manag-

ing a single organization’’ (296).

Leadership in a Hierarchy Versus Leadership in Networks

We should not assume that the findings from

the mainstream leadership literature, which

focuses on leaders in hierarchically structured,

private sector entities, is generalizable to lead-

ership in collaborative service delivery

arrangements. As Armistead, Pettigrew, and

Aves note ‘‘the extent to which approaches

relevant to a single organization translate adap-

tively into a partnership context is not clear’’

(2007, 213). The problem with translating hier-

archical leadership theory to networks may rest

with the differences between the two contexts.

The network environment may be more com-

plex due to the various goals each member of

the network has for the outcome of their com-

bined effort and to the constraints that are

imposed upon the collective action by the home

organizations of the various members of the

network (Huxham and Vangen 2000b). Van

Slyke and Alexander note that the increased use

of networks in the public sector presents ‘‘a sig-

nificant departure from leading large, centra-

lized, hierarchically arranged institutions in

which the leader guides followers who are

employees of their organization’’ (2006, 364).

Whereas in the agency context, a leader has the

responsibility to evaluate performance, punish,

and reward personnel (Van Slyke and Alexander

2006), and, often times, has the authority to hire

and fire, the network leader has none of these

powers. Therefore, the difference between

leadership in hierarchical and collaborative

service delivery suggests that managers, out of

necessity, need to adapt their leadership beha-

vior to cope with the varying demands of these

two different environments.

Silvia and McGuire (2010) found that there

is in fact a difference between leadership in

these two contexts. When operating in the

network context, leaders spend significantly

more time on people-oriented behaviors, such

as motivating personnel, creating trust, treating

others as equals, maintaining a close-knit

group, so on, than they do while leading their

agency. Conversely, leaders in the hierarchical

context spent more time focusing on schedul-

ing, assigning, and coordinating work than they

did in the network setting. In addition, they

found that behaviors focused on managing the

organizational environment, such as identifying

resources and stakeholders and encouraging

and maintaining support from superiors and

stakeholders, were important in both contexts.

As a result, they concluded that collaborative

leadership is different than hierarchical leader-

ship and that public managers must use different

behaviors while leading their network than they

do while leading their agency.

Silvia 67

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2015slg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Collaborative Leadership

Given these situational differences between

networks and hierarchies, one of the key ques-

tions facing practitioners who lead these interor-

ganizational entities is ‘‘how do I lead [someone]

who neither works for me nor has ownership in

my organization’s ethos?’’ (Ingraham and Van

Slyke 2006, 392). Clearly, public sector networks

present new challenges for management and

those who study it. However, we have little

research to rely upon for answers, as neither the

public nor private sector leadership literatures

have much to offer regarding leadership in this

setting (Huxham and Vangen 2000b).

Agranoff and McGuire (2001) categorize

the unique behaviors required of leaders and

managers in collaborative environments into

four operational categories: activation, framing,

mobilizing, and synthesizing. McGuire (2006)

defined activation as the ‘‘identification and

incorporation of the right people and resources

needed to achieve program goals’’ and framing

as establishing ‘‘the leadership and administra-

tive roles, . . . [establishing] an identity and

culture for the network, and . . . [developing]

a working structure for the network’’ (37).

Mobilizing behavior is aimed at motivating,

inspiring, and inducing commitment from those

directly involved in the network as well as from

individuals from within the manager’s primary

organization (Agranoff and McGuire 2001).

Finally, synthesizing ‘‘involves engendering

productive and purposeful interaction among all

actors’’ as well as ‘‘facilitating relationships in

order to build trust and promote information

exchange’’ (McGuire 2006, 37). The following

sections provide a more detailed analysis of

how these four concepts can be used to guide

leadership in collaborative service delivery.

Collaborative Leadership and Activation

Leadership plays an important role in determin-

ing who to include in the network. Network

membership is often driven by the need to

ensure that the network has the resources it

needs to achieve its mission, by the desire to

‘‘balance the membership’’ along ideological,

demographic, or role lines, and/or to ensure that

the membership is large enough to incorporate

the various groups that have a stake in the

collaborative venture (Huxham and Vangen

2000a). Vangen and Huxham’s (2003) later

work focused on leadership activities that

facilitate or impede collaborative efforts. Their

research showed that efforts focused on incorpor-

ating the ‘‘right’’ network members, empowering

those members to enable them to fully participate

in the network, involving all members throughout

the process, and mobilizing network members to

accomplish the network mission and goals sup-

ported the partnership and was in-line with the

‘‘spirit of collaboration.’’ On the other hand,

playing politics or manipulating the network and

its members through stealth or heavy handedness

undermined the ability of the network to succeed.

Collaborative Leadership and Framing

As in a hierarchy, it is often the leader that

establishes and frames the mission and vision

of the network. Huxham and Vangen’s

(2000b) identified three major media through

which leadership in networks can be enacted:

leadership through structure, where structure

refers to the collaborative organization and the

individuals associated with it; leadership through

process, meaning the process through which

collaborative communication takes place; and

leadership though participants, where the partici-

pants include the individuals that make up the

network as well as the organizations and groups

they represent. Through these three media, leaders

can engage in behaviors aimed at managing power

and controlling the agenda, representing and

mobilizing member organization, and enthusing

and empowering those who can deliver collabora-

tion aims.

Collaborative Leadership and Mobilizing

Agranoff (2005) identified eight tasks or roles

that are important for collaborative perfor-

mance management. Among these factors, he

68 State and Local Government Review 43(1)

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2015slg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

particularly noted the importance of leadership

in mobilization. The network leader must gain

and maintain support from supervisors in order

to successfully work outside of the traditional,

agency boundaries. Not only does the network

leader need to convince their home agency of

the need to reach out to others to solve the

‘‘wicked problems’’ it faces, but he or she must

also promote the network to other current and

potential collaborative partners to encourage

their involvement.

Collaborative Leadership and Synthesizing

Feyerherm (1994) has explored how various

leadership behaviors influence the diverse

members of the network to come to understand

the problems similarly and act on solutions in

concert. She found that leadership behaviors

that focused on bringing individual ideas,

interests, viewpoints, and goals into the discus-

sion was a key to solving shared problems. This

is because, until the perspectives of the various

network members are understood, consensus

would be difficult to obtain. Additionally, she

found that leadership behaviors focused on

brainstorming, as a means to expand the number

of alternatives being discussed by the network,

and initiating collective action were also very

important for achieving a shared vision of the

problems and solutions.

Similarly, Weiss, Anderson, and Lasker’s

(2002) objective was to add to our understand-

ing of the ways that the collaborative process

can successfully synergize or take advantage

of the perspectives, knowledge, skills, and

abilities of the various partnership members.

One of the key factors impacting partnership

synergy was leadership effectiveness, which

includes behaviors and activities such as ‘‘taking

responsibility for the partnership; inspiring and

motivating partners; empowering partners;

working to develop a common language within

the partnership; fostering respect, trust, inclusive-

ness, and openness in the partnership; creating an

environment where differences of opinion can

be voiced; resolving conflict among partners;

combining the perspectives, resources, and skills

of partners; and helping the partnership look

at things differently and be creative’’ (Weiss,

Anderson, and Lasker 2002, 688–9).

Collaborative Leadership and Network Effectiveness

Crosby and Bryson (2005) stated that ‘‘perhaps

the most effective tool a leader can wield for

accomplishing an organization’s mission is his

or her own behavior’’ (95). Using the activa-

tion, mobilization, framing, and synthesizing

framework, McGuire and Silvia (2009) found

that activation behaviors, while very common

and presumably important, did not have a signif-

icant impact on network effectiveness. Activa-

tion behaviors, which are aimed at identifying

the personnel and resource needs of the network,

set the groundwork for success, but do not

directly lead to effective networks. ‘‘It is likely

that activation behaviors are necessary but not

sufficient for network effectiveness’’ (McGuire

and Silvia 2009, 53). Time spent engaging in

framing behaviors, such as creating member

buy-in and establishing roles, rules, and norms,

were found to take away from the network’s

ability to be effective. Clearly framing is impor-

tant. Leaders need to ensure that there is agree-

ment regarding the network’s goals and

mission. This is critical in that it lays a founda-

tion for network success. However, spending

too much time getting everyone on the same

page takes away from time that could be spent

actually accomplishing the networks mission,

signals that the network lacks goal alignment

and cohesion, and therefore hampers network

effectiveness.

One issue that many networks face is the

establishment of legitimacy in the eyes of sta-

keholders, including those within the network

members’ home agencies, those who are the

recipients of the services delivered by the net-

work, and the network members themselves.

Networks need the support of these external

stakeholders in that they control resources and

influence the network’s ability to function.

A network also needs its own membership to

be committed to its mission. Therefore, it is

no surprise that mobilization behaviors have a

Silvia 69

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2015slg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

significant influence on network effectiveness.

The more time that is spent in this area, the

more effective networks were found to be.

Similarly, synthesizing behaviors were found

to positively impact network effectiveness.

Synthesizing behaviors are all about promoting

an environment in which the network members

can effectively operate by creating an atmosphere

of unity, openness, and trust. Of these, trust is

particularly important in that it is the most com-

monly cited determinant of the network success

by academics and practitioners alike.

Conclusion

The collaborative leader’s task is such that he

or she must guide a group of independent but

related entities toward the accomplishment of

a task that all of the entities seek to achieve, but

none of them are able to solve alone. This type

of task and the environment in which it is to be

accomplished is very different from the single

agency, hierarchical structure in which a public

manager typically operates. Therefore, it is

conceivable that the collaborative leader must

exhibit behaviors that are substantively differ-

ent than practices in a hierarchical setting.

Fortunately, the growing body of research on

this subject provides some insights into the best

practices of network leadership.

Teamwork: In order for a network to function

optimally, the network members must see the

value of the network and see that the achieve-

ment of their agency’s individual goals will be

enhanced as a result of working within the net-

work. The job of facilitating this perspective and

vision is often the responsibility of the leader of

a network.

Resources: Resources define what the network

can accomplish. Networks function optimally

when the right mix of resources is brought to the

table. The resources include things like personnel,

information, finances, legitimacy, power, equip-

ment, so on. Network leaders must understand

what resources the network has and what

resources the network needs. The leader then

has the responsibility to recruit new network

members that can help make up for the network’s

resource deficiencies.

Understanding: Network leaders establish

the vision, norms, expectations, and groundwork

for the network. Creating a common foundation

upon which to operate is critical. However, as

discussed above, this must be accomplished

as quickly as possible because spending time

discovering a common ground takes away from

functioning as a unified network.

Stakeholder Support: Every network needs a

champion. Generating the support of both

internal and external stakeholders is one of the

most important tasks undertaken by a network

leader. This can be done by publicizing the

networks accomplishments and working with

stakeholders to help them see the value added

by the network.

Trust: Trust is the glue that holds the network

together. Network members come from differ-

ent home agencies and therefore have different

organizational cultures, operating procedures,

perspectives, and goals for the network. While

these can serve as roadblocks to effective

networks, research suggests that trust can help

overcome this. If network members trust that

their colleagues have the network’s best interest

in mind, they are more likely to fully engage in

the network’s mission.

Given the millions of dollars and thousands

of hours spent on leadership training by govern-

ments across the country, the impact of leader-

ship on governance is of particular interest.

While the aforementioned literature is certainly

a start, more needs to be understood. As govern-

ments increasingly turn to networks as a means

to accomplish their mandated responsibilities,

researchers and practitioners alike need to know

what practices and techniques can lead to the

best results and can work together to gain this

knowledge.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interests

with respect to the authorship and/or publication of

this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the

research and/or authorship of this article.

70 State and Local Government Review 43(1)

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2015slg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

References

Agranoff, Robert. 2005. Managing collaborative

performance: Changing the boundaries of the

state? Public Performance and Management

Review 29:18–45.

Agranoff, Robert, and Michael McGuire. 2001.

Big questions in public network management

research. Journal of Public Administration

Research and Theory 11:295–326.

Armistead, Colin, Paul Pettigrew, and Sally Aves.

2007. Exploring leadership in multi-sectoral part-

nerships. Leadership 3:211–30.

Crosby, Barbara C., and John M. Bryson. 2005.

Leadership for the common good: Tackling pub-

lic problems in a shared-power world. 2nd ed.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Feyerherm, Ann E. 1994. Leadership in collaboration:

A longitudinal study of two interorganizational

rule-making groups. The Leadership Quarterly

5:253–70.

Frederickson, H. George, and Kevin B. Smith. 2003.

The public administration primer. Boulder, CO:

Westview Press.

Huxham, Chris, and Siv Vangen. 2000a. Ambiguity,

complexity and dynamics in the membership of

collaboration. Human Relations 53:771–806.

Huxham, Chris, and Siv Vangen. 2000b. Leadership

in the shaping and implementation of

collaboration agendas: How things happen in a

(not quite) joined-up world. The Academy of

Management Journal 43:1159–75.

Ingraham, Patricia W., and David M. Van Slyke.

2006. The path ahead for public service

leadership. The American Review of Public

Administration 36:392–4.

Kettl, Donald F. 1996. Governing at the millennium. In

Handbook of Public Administration, ed. J. L. Perry

(pp. 5–18). San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

McGuire, Michael. 2006. Collaborative public

management: Assessing what we know and how

we know it. Public Administration Review

66:33–43.

McGuire, Michael, and Chris Silvia. 2009. Does

leadership in networks matter? Examining the

effect of leadership behaviors on managers’

perceptions of network effectiveness. Public

Performance & Management Review 33:34–62.

Milward, H. Brinton, and Keith G. Provan. 2000. Gov-

erning the hollow state. Journal of Public Adminis-

tration Research & Theory 10:359–80.

Silvia, Chris, and Michael McGuire. 2010. Leading

Public sector networks: An empirical examina-

tion of integrative leadership behaviors. Leader-

ship Quarterly 21:264–77.

Van Slyke, David M., and Robert W. Alexander.

2006. Public service leadership: Opportunities

for clarity and coherence. American Review of

Public Administration 64:362–374.

Vangen, Siv, and Chris Huxham. 2003. Enacting

leadership for collaborative advantage: Dilemmas

of ideology and pragmatism in the activities of

partnership managers. British Journal of Manage-

ment 14:S61–S76.

Weiss, Elisa S., Rebecca Miller Anderson, and Roz

D. Lasker. 2002. Making the most of collabora-

tion: Exploring the relationship between partner-

ship synergy and partnership functioning. Health

Education & Behavior 29:683–98.

Bio

Chris Silvia is an assistant professor in the

Department of Public Administration at the Univer-

sity of Kansas. His research focuses on collaborative

governance, public service delivery, and leadership.

He has published articles in Public Administration

Review, The Leadership Quarterly, and Public and

Performance Management Review.

Silvia 71

at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on February 19, 2015slg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Gray Gamma 2.2) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Warning /CompatibilityLevel 1.3 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages false /CreateJDFFile false /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.1000 /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams true /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness false /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Remove /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages false /ColorImageMinResolution 266 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 200 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.00000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages false /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages false /GrayImageMinResolution 266 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 200 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.00000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages false /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages false /MonoImageMinResolution 900 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Average /MonoImageResolution 600 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.00000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier (CGATS TR 001) /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org) /PDFXTrapped /Unknown /Description << /ENU <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> >> /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ << /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >> << /AllowImageBreaks true /AllowTableBreaks true /ExpandPage false /HonorBaseURL true /HonorRolloverEffect false /IgnoreHTMLPageBreaks false /IncludeHeaderFooter false /MarginOffset [ 0 0 0 0 ] /MetadataAuthor () /MetadataKeywords () /MetadataSubject () /MetadataTitle () /MetricPageSize [ 0 0 ] /MetricUnit /inch /MobileCompatible 0 /Namespace [ (Adobe) (GoLive) (8.0) ] /OpenZoomToHTMLFontSize false /PageOrientation /Portrait /RemoveBackground false /ShrinkContent true /TreatColorsAs /MainMonitorColors /UseEmbeddedProfiles false /UseHTMLTitleAsMetadata true >> << /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /BleedOffset [ 9 9 9 9 ] /ConvertColors /ConvertToRGB /DestinationProfileName (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /DestinationProfileSelector /UseName /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /ClipComplexRegions true /ConvertStrokesToOutlines false /ConvertTextToOutlines false /GradientResolution 300 /LineArtTextResolution 1200 /PresetName ([High Resolution]) /PresetSelector /HighResolution /RasterVectorBalance 1 >> /FormElements true /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles true /MarksOffset 9 /MarksWeight 0.125000 /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PageMarksFile /RomanDefault /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ] /SyntheticBoldness 1.000000 >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [288 288] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice