Session Type: Paper Presentations Accepted by MIG(s): Scholarship, Public Time Allotted: 90 Description: New modes and models of leadership practice press the boundaries of our theoretical frameworks. This panel addresses three of those modes and models—the internet; social entrepreneurship; and invisible leadership—and their theoretical implications. Abstract: New modes and models of leadership practice press the boundaries of our theoretical frameworks. This panel addresses three of those modes and models and their theoretical implications. The internet has created social networks that permit complex adaptive systems in which leadership takes forms far distant than concepts of leaders in hierarchical organizations. People are turning to social entrepreneurship that invites further thought about what we know about moral development, meaning making, and leadership. Value-centric approaches to leadership, including the value of developing those with whom we work, have stimulated discussion on invisible leadership. This panel present three papers based on reflective practice and empirical research that bridge emerging practices with emerging theories.
Leadership within Diffuse Networks
Robert Cropf summarized the assessment of the internet’s impact on civic life. “While it is true that early promise of “click on” democracy (Davis, Elin and Reeher, 2002) has not been fulfilled, it is nevertheless far too soon to give up on the Internet’s capability to help enhance civil society. The evidence points to experiments that work and can be replicated elsewhere. Building the eDemocracy will require more work and take longer than originally expected but the basic premise remains fundamentally intact.”
Nancy Stutts has promoted one of those experiments for 10 years by her work on ConnectNetwork, a community knowledge network that targets change at the local level. The Network’s power comes from the relationships it fosters via region-wide and issue-specific social networks. The focus is local because lasting change occurs when the citizens affected by a problem work together to solve it. The resource is free because those who need it most are the least able to afford it.
Each local Network affords nonprofits, government, businesses and civic-minded people daily access to data and reports, local organizations and information and each other to create opportunities for civic action.
The paper will relate this work to the current theoretical work based on complexity theory and the nature of leadership, without a particular leader, in a complex adaptive system.
Exploring the Meaning Making that Leads to Social Entrepreneurial Action
This paper discusses research that explores the meaning making that leads to social entrepreneurial action: imaginative and transforming actions that are solving complex, persistent social problems for the benefit of humanity. Recent research on leadership suggests that such actions require complex ways of knowing - new ways of thinking that lead to new ways of acting. However, to date the leadership literature has paid little attention to the evolution of social entrepreneurial leaders and their capacity to lead change.
Ways of knowing are determined by the cognitive and affective capacity that a person has available as she or he progresses through distinct phases of evolving epistemic complexity and capacity. The more complex one’s way of knowing, the more transforming are their actions. Through the lens of constructive-developmental theory (Kegan, 1982, 1994) and action inquiry (Torbert, 2003, 2004), this paper describes the capacity of social entrepreneurs to adapt to the unknown and engage in the skillful means required to create sustainable change. Through administration of the Leadership Development Profile (LDP), the complexity of the ways of knowing of 10 social entrepreneurs are assessed and in-depth interviews uncover the perspective-shifting moments that lead to their continuing engagement with social entrepreneurial action.
In its essence, this research is an inquiry into the experience of shifting from the “I” to the “We.” An investigation into the knowing that leads to transforming actions for the greater good expands the nature of research into the entrepreneurial mind-set, deepens our understanding of the social entrepreneurial experience, and provides insights for leading change in continuously changing environments. Most importantly, this research reveals pathways for how to best support and develop present and future social change leaders.
Invisible Leadership
Forty former Kellogg National Fellows reflected upon the concept of invisible leadership based on their practice. The Fellows’ responses illustrate the practice of invisible leadership. They share thoughts and feelings around concepts of providing encouragement and support, modeling shared-leadership behavior, being humble, stepping back to let others take the lead. They describe their work of “providing inspiration, working on behalf of others, bringing common purpose forward, igniting interest and providing resources, and setting the environment and planting new seeds.” One Fellow reminds us, “no one goes to the show to see the director.” This concept of legacy was present within many of the responses.
In addition to the recent work of Gill Hickman and Georgia Sorenson, the term “invisible leadership” brings to mind Robert Greenleaf’s servant leadership, numerous works on distributed leadership, and James MacGregor Burn’s observation that legions of people behind the scenes get things done and influence transforming leadership (1978). Mary Follett Parker utilizes the term “invisible leader” to describe the common purpose that both leaders and followers pursue. Whether referring to leader or leadership, what differentiates “invisible” from other types of leadership is common purpose – the mutuality of purpose that leaders and followers share.
Thus the theory of invisible leadership may be part of effective leadership practice in a shared-power world. It makes shared purpose the center of the energy field of leadership and permits those with and without authority, with more and less visibility the power to invoke that purpose. It not only underscores the legacy others provide us but the place that our leadership has in providing a legacy for others. The thoughtful responses of the Kellogg Fellows provide us with important insights into the day-to-day practice of invisible leadership.
Leadership within Diffuse Networks Description: Diffuse Networks affords nonprofits, government, businesses and civic-minded people daily access to data and reports, organizations, information, and each other to create opportunities for civic action. The paper relates the work of ConnectNetwork and others to the current theoretical work based on complexity theory and the nature of leadership, without a particular leader, in a complex adaptive system. Abstract: Robert Cropf summarized the assessment of the internet’s impact on civic life. “While it is true that early promise of “click on” democracy (Davis, Elin and Reeher, 2002) has not been fulfilled, it is nevertheless far too soon to give up on the Internet’s capability to help enhance civil society. The evidence points to experiments that work and can be replicated elsewhere. Building the eDemocracy will require more work and take longer than originally expected but the basic premise remains fundamentally intact.”
Nancy Stutts has promoted one of those experiments for 10 years by her work on ConnectNetwork, a community knowledge network that targets change at the local level. The Network’s power comes from the relationships it fosters via region-wide and issue-specific social networks. The focus is local because lasting change occurs when the citizens affected by a problem work together to solve it. The resource is free because those who need it most are the least able to afford it.
Each local Network affords nonprofits, government, businesses and civic-minded people daily access to data and reports, local organizations and information and each other to create opportunities for civic action.
The paper will relate this work to the current theoretical work based on complexity theory and the nature of leadership, without a particular leader, in a complex adaptive system.
Nancy Stutts, ConnectRichmond; Wilder School of Public Affairs, Virginia Commonwealth University
Bio: Nancy Stutts is the director of ConnectRichmond. Her work with nonprofit organizations spans some 20 years, where she largely worked to plan and develop new initiatives, such as a study to address issues affecting children and families in poor, rural areas. She launched ConnectNetwork's first site, ConnectRichmond in November, 2001 as she was completing her Ph.D. in public policy from Virginia Commonwealth University. Her research is community-based and related to her interest in philanthropy, community leadership and social change. She is on the faculty in the L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs of Virginia Commonwealth University. From 1998 to 2006, she was an associate faculty member in the University of Richmond’s Jepson School.
Exploring the Meaning Making that Leads to Social Entrepreneurial Action Description: Through the lenses of constructive-developmental theory and action inquiry, this paper assesses the complexity of the ways of knowing of 10 social entrepreneurs and discusses the perspective-shifting moments that led to their engagement with social entrepreneurial actions. Abstract: This paper discusses research that explores the meaning making that leads to social entrepreneurial action: imaginative and transforming actions that are solving complex, persistent social problems for the benefit of humanity. Recent research on leadership suggests that such actions require complex ways of knowing - new ways of thinking that lead to new ways of acting. However, to date the leadership literature has paid little attention to the evolution of social entrepreneurial leaders and their capacity to lead change.
Ways of knowing are determined by the cognitive and affective capacity that a person has available as she or he progresses through distinct phases of evolving epistemic complexity and capacity. The more complex one’s way of knowing, the more transforming are their actions. Through the lens of constructive-developmental theory (Kegan, 1982, 1994) and action inquiry (Torbert, 2003, 2004), this paper describes the capacity of social entrepreneurs to adapt to the unknown and engage in the skillful means required to create sustainable change. Through administration of the Leadership Development Profile (LDP), the complexity of the ways of knowing of 10 social entrepreneurs are assessed and in-depth interviews uncover the perspective-shifting moments that lead to their continuing engagement with social entrepreneurial action.
In its essence, this research is an inquiry into the experience of shifting from the “I” to the “We.” An investigation into the knowing that leads to transforming actions for the greater good expands the nature of research into the entrepreneurial mind-set, deepens our understanding of the social entrepreneurial experience, and provides insights for leading change in continuously changing environments. Most importantly, this research reveals pathways for how to best support and develop present and future social change leaders.
Kathleen Roberts, Idaho State University
Bio: Kathleen Roberts is a trained mediator who has facilitated reconciliation dialogues with Israeli, Arab, and Palestinian educators and has trained with Bob Kegan, Lisa Lahey, Bill Torbert and Otto Scharmer on how to facilitate change on the personal, community, and organizational level. She is currently Director of EO/AA & Diversity at Idaho State University and previously served as an Assistant Attorney General and Assistant District Attorney for the State of Maine where she concentrated on the prosecution of white collar crime, hate crimes, and the development of civil rights training for middle and high school students and faculty. Kathleen is also a doctoral student in Antioch’s Leadership & Change program where her research is focused on the complexity of meaning making that leads to social entrepreneurial action.
Invisible Leadership Description: Gill Hickman and Georgia Sorenson, who have written and discussed invisible leadership for many years, proposed two questions to former Kellogg National Leadership Fellows: “Can leadership be invisible? How and why have you practiced invisible leadership?” This paper analyzes the responses of 40 of the Fellows to provide valuable insight into how invisible leadership is perceived and practiced. Abstract: Dealing with leadership’s many conflicting definitions gives us great opportunity for confusion. Formal or positional leadership differs from the idea that many people, with and without formal authority, take initiative on behalf of shared values. Hickman and Sorenson define invisible leadership as denoting “a process in which major organizers and change leaders often are unknown to those outside the endeavor; as a results, their source of motivation, valuable contributions, and personal agency also go unnoticed by outside observers” (2004, p. 750). They also note that leaders can go in and out of invisible and visible leadership, depending on the circumstances with the driving force behind their behavior being common purpose. “Invisible leadership emerges when people become advocates and embodiments of the common purpose. Individuals strive to achieve a shared and valued end without regard for their own visibility or recognition.”
Hickman and Sorenson proposed two questions to former Kellogg Fellows: “Can leadership be invisible? How and why have you practiced invisible leadership?” Forty Fellows provided us with valuable information and insight into how they perceive invisible leadership and how it is practiced with their various organizational settings.
The importance of these two questions is that they provide us with an understanding of how leadership theory is manifest in leadership practice.
The practice of leadership is moving toward a less hierarchical structure and becoming more distributed throughout organizations. The term “invisible leadership” brings to mind Robert Greenleaf’s servant leadership, numerous works on distributed leadership, and James MacGregor Burn’s observation that legions of people behind the scenes get things done and influence transforming leadership (1978). Mary Follett Parker utilizes the term “invisible leader” to describe the common purpose that both leaders and followers pursue. Whether referring to leader or leadership, what differentiates “invisible” from other types of leadership is common purpose – the mutuality of purpose that leaders and followers share.
The Fellows’ responses illustrate of how invisible leadership is perceived and practiced within their unique setting. They share profound thoughts and feelings around concepts of providing encouragement and support, modeling shared-leadership behavior, being humble, stepping back to let others take the lead. They describe their work of “providing inspiration, working on behalf of others, bringing common purpose forward, igniting interest and providing resources, and setting the environment and planting new seeds.” One Fellow reminds us, “no one goes to the show to see the director”. This concept of legacy was present within many of the responses.
Current leadership theory may differ over definitions but it is widely assumed that leadership is an influence relationship with intended results. Invisible leadership recognizes a shared-power world. It makes shared purpose the center of the energy field of leadership and permits those with and without authority, with more and less visibility the power to invoke that purpose. It not only underscores the legacy others provide us but the place that our leadership has in providing a legacy for others. The thoughtful responses of the Kellogg Fellows provide us with important insights into how, on a day-to-day basis, these leaders demonstrate invisible leadership in practice.
Margaret Mark, PhD in Leadership and Change Program, Antioch University
Bio: Margaret W. Mark is currently a third-year doctoral student at Antioch University PhD in Leadership and Change program. Prior to moving to northern California, Margaret practiced her transformational leadership and change efforts in small, medium and large healthcare organizations, ranging from community-based programs serving various populations. Margaret lives in northern California where she is a Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Break-Through, LLC, a leadership consulting company. She is a faculty member of the Cascadia Center for Leadership where she teaches leadership skills to middle and upper level managers. Chair: Richard Couto, Union Institute and University
Bio: Richard A. Couto is Senior Scholar at the Union Institute and University and in its Interdisciplinary PhD program’s concentration on Ethical and Creative Leadership. He was a founding faculty member of the Jepson School of Leadership Studies as well as the Antioch PhD Leadership and Change program. His most recent scholarship is Reflections on Leadership and the 2010 two-volume edited work, Political and Civic Leadership: A Reference Handbook. Return to complete program |
