Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-bthnr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-11T12:54:39.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Organizational Crisis Resistance: Examining Leadership Mental Models of Necessary Practices to Resist Crises and the Role of Organizational Context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Jurgen Willems
Jurgen Willems*
Affiliation:
University of Hamburg, Von-Melle-Park 9, 20146 Hamburg, Germany
*
Jurgen.willems@wiso.uni-hamburg.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study explores which governance practices nonprofit leaders consider necessary to avoid organizational crises. Further, it explores whether these leadership mental models of crisis resistance depend on the organizational context. This helps determine whether practical learning points are organization specific or can be applied broadly. With a multilevel sample of 304 leaders from 44 Belgian nongovernmental development organizations, an exploratory path analysis reveals that nonprofit leaders consider continuous improvement, as a governance practice, particularly relevant for effective organizational crisis resistance. A multilevel analysis also shows that variations in leadership mental models cannot be explained by the organizational variables used in this study (organizational size, leadership group size, operational activities, and languages in the leadership group). This article concludes with a discussion of consequences for further research.

Résumé

Résumé

Cette étude explore les pratiques de gouvernance que les chefs d’organisme sans but lucratif jugent essentielles pour éviter les crises organisationnelles. Elle cherche aussi à découvrir si les modèles mentaux de résistance aux crises dépendent du contexte organisationnel. Cela permet de déterminer si les points d’apprentissage pratiques sont spécifiques à un organisme ou peuvent être appliqués à grande échelle. À l’aide d’un échantillon multiniveau de 304 chefs de 44 organismes belges de développement non gouvernementaux, une analyse exploratoire révèle que les chefs d’organisme sans but lucratif considèrent que l’amélioration continue est, comme pratique de gouvernance, particulièrement pertinente dans le contexte de la résistance organisationnelle aux situations de crise. Une analyse multiniveau démontre aussi que les écarts observés dans les modèles mentaux du leadership ne peuvent pas être expliqués par les variables organisationnelles utilisées dans la présente étude (taille de l’organisme, taille du groupe de direction, activités opérationnelles et langues utilisées au sein du groupe de direction). Cet article se conclut sur une discussion des conséquences aux fins de recherche subséquente.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Diese Studie untersucht, welche Führungspraktiken die Führungskräfte gemeinnütziger Organisationen für notwendig erachten, um organisatorische Krisen zu vermeiden. Zudem wird erforscht, ob diese mentalen Modelle der Führung zur Krisenresistenz vom organisatorischen Kontext abhängig sind. So lässt sich bestimmen, ob praktische Lerninhalte organisationsspezifisch oder weitgehend anwendbar sind. Anhand einer mehrstufigen Stichprobe von 304 Führungskräften aus 44 belgischen gemeinnützigen Entwicklungsorganisationen zeigt eine explorative Pfadanalyse, dass die Führungskräfte gemeinnütziger Organisationen eine kontinuierliche Verbesserung als Führungspraktik insbesondere für eine effektive Krisenresistenz einer Organisation als relevant betrachten. Eine mehrstufige Analyse zeigt zudem, dass sich Unterschiede in den mentalen Modellen der Führung nicht anhand organisatorischer Variablen in dieser Studie erklären lassen (Größe der Organisation, Größe der Führungsriege, betriebliche Aktivitäten und Sprachen in der Führungsriege). Der Beitrag schließt mit einer Diskussion über die Konsequenzen für weitere Forschungsarbeiten.

Resumen

Resumen

El presente estudio explora qué prácticas de gobernanza consideran necesarias los líderes de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro para evitar las crisis organizativas. Asimismo, explora si estos modelos mentales de liderazgo de resistencia a la crisis dependen del contexto organizativo. Esto ayuda a determinar si los puntos de aprendizaje prácticos son específicos de la organización o pueden ser aplicados más ampliamente. Con una muestra multinivel de 304 líderes de 44 organizaciones belgas no gubernamentales de desarrollo, un análisis exploratorio revela que los líderes de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro consideran la mejora continua, como una práctica de gobernanza, particularmente pertinente para una resistencia efectiva a la crisis organizativa. Un análisis multinivel también muestra que las variaciones en los modelos mentales de liderazgo no pueden ser explicados por las variables organizativas utilizadas en el presente estudio (tamaño organizativo, tamaño del grupo de liderazgo, actividades operativas e idiomas en el grupo de liderazgo). El presente artículo concluye con un debate de consecuencias para ulteriores investigaciones.

要約

要約

本研究探索非营利组织领导应考虑何种治理实践来避免组织危机。而且,本文还探索这些危机预防的领导思维模式是否依赖于组织背景。这将有助于确定特定学习重点是否具有组织特异性,或是否能广泛应用。通过来自44个比利时非政府发展组织的 304 名领导人的多层样本,一项探索路径分析显示,作为一种治理实践,非营利组织领导人考虑持续改进,特别是有关有效预防组织危机。多层分析还显示,无法由本研究中所使用的组织变量(组织规模、领导团体规模、运营活动和领导团体中的语言)来解释领导思维模式的变化。本文利用针对进一步研究结果的讨论,而作出结论。

ملخص

ملخص

تستكشف هذه الدراسة ممارسات الحوكمة التي يأخذها في الإعتبار زعماء المنظمات الغير ربحية اللازمة لتجنب الأزمات التنظيمية. علاوة على ذلك، فإنها تستكشف ما إذا كانت هذه النماذج العقلية لقيادة مقاومة الأزمة تعتمد على السياق التنظيمي. هذا يساعد على تحديد إذا كانت نقاط التعلم العملي هي منظمة معينة أو يمكن تطبيقها على نطاق واسع. مع عينة متعددة المستويات من 304 من قادة 44 منظمة غير حكومية للتنمية البلجيكية، يكشف تحليل المسار الإستكشافي أن قادة المنظمات الغير ربحية يأخذون في الإعتبارالتحسين المستمر، ممارسة الحكم، أهمية خاصة لفعالية مقاومة الأزمة التنظيمية. يبين تحليل متعدد المستويات أيضا أن الإختلافات في النماذج العقلية للقيادة لا يمكن شرحه بالمتغيرات التنظيمية المستخدمة في هذه الدراسة (الحجم التنظيمي، حجم المجموعة القيادية، الأنشطة التشغيلية، واللغات في مجموعة القيادة). تختتم هذه المقالة مع مناقشة العواقب لمزيد من البحث.

摘要

摘要

本研究では、ガバナンス ・ プラクティスの非営利団体の指導者が組織の危機を避けるための必要性について説明する。さらに、リーダーシップ危機の抵抗におけるメンタルモデルが組織背景に依存するかどうかを検討する。これによって、実践的な学習ポイントが特定組織であるか否か、または広範に適用できるかどうかを決定される。ベルギー政府の開発組織44団体における指導者304名のマルチレベルのサンプルを用いて、非営利団体の指導者が特に効果的な組織における危機抵抗に関連するガバナンス実践として、継続的な改善を考慮していることを探索パス解析より明らかにする。本研究(組織の規模、リーダーシップグループの規模、業務活動、リーダーシップのグループの言語) で使用される組織の変数では、リーダーシップのメンタルモデルの変化が説明できないことをマルチレベル解析が示している。本論文では、さらなる研究結果についての議論で締めくくる。

Keywords

Crisis resistanceNonprofit practicesGovernance qualityNGOsNonprofitEffectivenessLeadership mental modelsAgreementContinuous improvement

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 27 , Issue 6 , December 2016 , pp. 2807 - 2832
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anand, S., & Sen, A. (1994). Sustainable human development: Concepts and priorities. UNDP Human Development Report Office 1994 Occasional Papers.Google Scholar
Beck, T. E., Lengnick-Hall, C. A., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2008). Solutions out of context: Examining the transfer of business concepts to nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 19(2), 153–171. doi: 10.1002/nml.213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein, K. J. & Kozlowski, S. W. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Boyer, K. K., & Verma, R. (2000). Multiple raters in survey-based operations management research: A review and tutorial. Production and Operations Management, 9(2), 128–140. doi: 10.1111/j.1937-5956.2000.tb00329.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradshaw, P., Murray, V., & Wolpin, J. (1992). Do nonprofit boards make a difference? An exploration of the relationships among board structure, process and effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 21(13), 227–249. doi: 10.1177/089976409202100304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, W. A. (2005). Exploring the association between board and organizational performance in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 15(3), 317–339. doi: 10.1002/nml.71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, W. A., Hillman, A. J., & Okun, M. A. (2012). Factors that influence monitoring and resource provision among board members. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(1), 145–156. doi: 10.1177/0899764011402510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, W. A., & Iverson, J. O. (2004). Exploring strategy and board structure in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(3), 377–400. doi: 10.1177/0899764004265428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callen, J. L., Klein, A., & Tinkelman, D. (2003). Board composition, committees, and organizational efficiency: The case of nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(4), 493–520. doi: 10.1177/0899764003257462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (2001). Reflections on shared cognition. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 195–202. doi: 10.1002/job.82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, N. J., Gorman, J. C., Myers, C. W., & Duran, J. L. (2013). Interactive team cognition. Cognitive Science, 37, 255–285. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12009.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coombes, S. M. T., Morris, M. H., Allen, J. A., & Webb, J. W. (2011). Behavioural orientations of nonprofit boards as a factor in entrepreneurial performance: Does governance matter?. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 829–856. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00956.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornforth, C., & Simpson, C. (2003). The changing face of charity governance: The impact of organisational size. In Cornforth, C. (Ed.), The governance of public and nonprofit organizations: What do boards do? (pp. 187–206). London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203167571.Google Scholar
Cronin, M. A., Weingart, L. R., & Todorova, G. (2011). Dynamics in groups: Are we there yet?. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 571–612. doi: 10.1080/19416520.2011.590297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewaelheyns, N., Eeckloo, K., Van Herck, G., Van Hulle, C., & Vleugels, A. (2009). Do nonprofit nursing homes separate governance roles? The impact of size and ownership characteristics. Health Policy, 90(2&3), 188–195. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.09.014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DiMaggio, P. (2001). Measuring the impact of the nonprofit sector on society is probably impossible but possibly useful: A sociological perspective. In Flynn, P. & Hodgkinson, V. (Eds.), Measuring the Impact of the Nonprofit Sector (pp. 249–272). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
Forbes, D. P. (1998). Measuring the unmeasurable: Empirical studies of nonprofit organizations effectiveness from 1977 to 1997. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27(2), 183–202. doi: 10.1177/0899764098272005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. doi: 10.2307/3151312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, M., Flynn, R. J., & Raising, E. (2005). The governance self-assessment checklist: An instrument for assessing board effectiveness. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 15(3), 271–294. doi: 10.1002/nml.69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J. C., & Griesinger, D. W. (1996). Board performance and organizational effectiveness in nonprofit social services organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 6(4), 381–402. doi: 10.1002/nml.4130060407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grunewald, D. (2008). The Sarbanes-Oxley Act will change the governance of nonprofit organizations. Journal of Business Ethic, 80, 399–401. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9450-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–151. doi: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helmig, B., Ingerfurth, S., & Pinz, A. (2014). Success and failure of nonprofit organizations: Theoretical foundations, empirical evidence, and future research. VOLUNTAS, 25(6), 1509–1538. doi: 10.1007/s11266-013-9402-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (1999). Theses on nonprofit organizational effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(2), 107–126. doi: 10.1177/0899764099282001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (2000). Board practices of especially effective and less effective local nonprofit organizations. American Review of Public Administration, 30(2), 146–160. doi: 10.1177/02750740022064605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (2008). Advancing nonprofit organizational effectiveness research and theory: Nine theses. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 18(4), 399–415. doi: 10.1002/nml.195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 85–98. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, K., & Subramanian, S. V. (2009). Developing multilevel models using MLwiN 2.1: A training manual.Google Scholar
Jun, K., & Shiau, E. (2012). How are we doing? A multiple constituency approach to civic association effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(4), 632–655. doi: 10.1177/0899764011415119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanno, T., Furuta, K., & Kitahara, Y. (2013). A model of team cognition based on mutual beliefs. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 14, 38–52. doi: 10.1080/1464536X.2011.573010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(3), 211–236. doi: 10.1177/109442810033001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor?. Journal of Management, 20, 403–437. doi: 10.1177/014920639402000206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., Grand, J. A., Braun, M. T., & Kuljanin, G. (2013). Advancing multilevel research design: Capturing the dynamics of emergence. Organizational Research Methods, 16(4), 581–615. doi: 10.1177/1094428113493119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lecy, J. D., Schmitz, H. P., & Swedlund, H. (2012). Non-governmental and not-for-profit organizational effectiveness: A modern synthesis. VOLUNTAS, 23(2), 434–457. doi: 10.1007/s11266-011-9204-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, B., & Klein, K. J. (2006). Team mental models and team performance: A field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 403–418. doi: 10.1002/job.387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindell, M. K., & Brandt, C. J. (1999). Assessing interrater agreement on the job relevance of a test: A comparison of CVI, T, r WG(J), and r*WG(J) indexes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 640–647. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, M. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (2000). Performance implications of leader briefings and team-interaction training for team adaptation to novel environments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 971–986. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273–283. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClusky, J. E. (2002). Re-thinking nonprofit organizations governance: Implications for management and leadership. International Journal of Public Administration, 25(4), 539–560. doi: 10.1081/PAD-120013255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, C. N., Edwards, J. R., & Antonakis, J. (2014). Reflections on partial least squares path modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 210–251. doi: 10.1177/1094428114529165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mews, M., & Boenigk, S. (2012). Does organizational reputation influence the willingness to donate blood. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 10(1), 49–64. doi: 10.1007/s12208-012-0090-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, G. E. (2013). The construct of organizational effectiveness: Perspectives from leaders of international nonprofits in the United States. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(2), 324–345. doi: 10.1177/0899764011434589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monecke, A. (2013). Package semPLS: Structural equation modeling using partial least squares. http://cran.r-project.org/. January 27, 2015.Google Scholar
Perrow, C. (1961). The analysis of goals in complex organizations. American Sociological Review, 26(6), 854–866. doi: 10.2307/2090570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeffer, J. (1972). Size, composition, and function of corporate boards of directors: The organization and its environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(2), 218–228. doi: 10.2307/2393956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Probst, G., & Raisch, S. (2005). Organizational crisis: The logic of failure. Academy of Management Perspectives, 19(1), 90–105. doi: 10.5465/AME.2005.15841958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radbournes, J. (2003). Performing on board: The link between governance and corporate reputation in nonprofit arts boards. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(3), 212–222. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasbash, J., Charlton, C., Browne, W. J., Healy, M., & Cameron, B. (2005). MLwiN Version 2.02. Centre for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol.Google Scholar
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0 (beta). www.smartpls.de, Hamburg.Google Scholar
Rojas, R. R. (2000). A review of model for measuring organizational effectiveness among for-profit and nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 11(1), 97–104. doi: 10.1002/nml.11109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarstedt, M., Henseler, J., & Ringle, C. M. (2011). Multigroup analysis in partial least squares (PLS) path modeling: Alternative methods and empirical results. Advances in International Marketing, 22, 195–218. doi: 10.1108/S1474-7979(2011)0000022012.Google Scholar
Sarstedt, M., & Schloderer, M. P. (2010). Developing a measurement approach for reputation of nonprofit organizations. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 15(3), 276–299.10.1002/nvsm.389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sowa, J. E., Selden, S. C., & Sandfort, J. R. (2004). No longer unmeasurable? A multidimensional integrated model of nonprofit organizational effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(4), 711–728. doi: 10.1177/0899764004269146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, R. D., Dawley, D. D., & Stephens, D. B. (2004). Commitment on the board: A model of volunteer directors’ levels of organizational commitment and self-reported performance. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16(4), 583.Google Scholar
Stone, M. M., & Ostrower, F. (2007). Acting in the public interest? Another look at research on nonprofit governance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(3), 416–438. doi: 10.1177/0899764006296049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valéau, P., Willems, J., & Parak, H. (2016). The effect of attitudinal and behavioral commitment on the internal assessment of organizational effectiveness: A multilevel analysis. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. doi: 10.1007/s11266-016-9703-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Puyvelde, S., Brown, W. A., & Willems, J. (2014). Board size and board effectiveness in nonprofit organizations. Paper presented at the ARNOVA Conference, Denver.Google Scholar
Van Puyvelde, S., Caers, R., Du Bois, C., & Jegers, M. (2012). The governance of nonprofit organizations: Integrating agency theory with stakeholder and stewardship theories. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(3), 431–451. doi: 10.1177/0899764011409757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willems, J. (2015). Building shared mental models of organizational effectiveness in leadership teams through team member exchange quality. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. doi: 10.1177/0899764015601244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willems, J., Andersson, F.O., Jegers, M., and Renz, D. O. (2016). A coalition perspective on nonprofit governance quality: Analyzing dimensions of influence in an exploratory comparative case analysis. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. doi: 10.1007/s11266-016-9683-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willems, J., Boenigk, S., & Jegers, M. (2014). Seven trade-offs in measuring nonprofit performance and effectiveness. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(6), 1648–1670. doi: 10.1007/s11266-014-9446-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willems, J., Huybrechts, G., Jegers, M., Weijters, B., Vantilborgh, T., Bidee, J., & Pepermans, R. (2012a). Nonprofit governance quality: Concept and measurement. Journal of Social Service Research, 38(4), 561–578. doi: 10.1080/01488376.2012.703578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willems, J., Jegers, M., & Faulk, L. (2016b). Organizational effectiveness reputation in the nonprofit sector. Public Performance and Management Review., 39(2), 476–497. doi: 10.1080/15309576.2015.1108802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willems, J., Van den Bergh, J., & Deschoolmeester, D. (2012b). Analyzing employee agreement on maturity assessment tools for organizations. Knowledge and Process Management, 19(3), 142–147. doi: 10.1002/kpm.1389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willems, J., Van Puyvelde, S., Jegers, M., Vantilborgh, T., Bidee, J., & Pepermans, R. (2015). Exploring board interlocking behavior between nonprofit organizations. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics., 86(1), 73–88. doi: 10.1111/apce.12067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zajac, S., Bedwell, W. L., Kramer, W. S., & Salas, E. (2014). The cognitive underpinnings of adaptive team performance in ill-defined task situations: A closer look at team cognition. Organizational Psychology Review, 4, 49–73. doi: 10.1177/2041386613492787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar