the power of invisible leadership how a compelling common purpose inspires exceptional leadership

8/10/2019 The Power of Invisible Leadership How a Compelling Common Purpose Inspires Exceptional Leadership

1/7


2/7

Book Reviews 761

yet is not redundant (discrimination). In the case ofinvisible leadership, these tests were either not done ornot reported and described in this book, leaving thereader to ask what this measure is actually captur-ing and whether what it is capturing could not becaptured using existing measures of shared leadership,transformational leadership, servant leadership, and soon, either alone or in combination. Te authors statethat 12 other leadership constructs provide the build-ing blocks (18) for invisible leadership, but moretheoretical and empirical work is needed to establishthe construct validity of invisible leadership amongthese related leadership concepts. Beyond other leader-ship constructs, looking at the items in the invisibleleadership measure also leads me to inquire whethertheir measure differs theoretically and empirically fromexisting measures of organizational identication andaffective commitment, which should also be tested forconvergent and discriminant validity.

Direction of CausalityHickman and Sorenson ask, Can common purpose

actually inspire leadership? Our research leads usto believe that it can (5). If the authors have suchevidence, it is not reported in their book. Tere aredecades of research showing that leadership inuencesfollowers sense of purpose and meaning, values, levelsof commitment and engagement, intrinsic motivation,prosocial thoughts and behaviors, and many otheroutcomes that are conceptually associated with com-mon purpose (see Bass and Bass 2008). Tus, for theauthors to propose the reverse causalitythat purposedrives leadershipis a powerful assertion that cannotbe expressed without scrutiny and, more importantly,evidence. esting their assertion would require longitu-dinal research in organizations using lagged, repeatedmeasures to show that common purpose inuencesleadership over time and not the reverse.

It is thus entirely premature for us to eschew decadesof important empirical evidence demonstrating thecausal effects of leadership on constructs associated

with common purpose. In reality, however, theserelationships are likely recursive, in that leadershipinuences common purpose, which, in turn, pro-motes organizational members to demonstrate moreformal and informal leadership, leading to more com-

mon purpose, and so on. Tere is certainly a role forformal leaders in this recursive process, however, andthat role can be supportive or deleterious to creatingcommon purpose. Higher-level factors such as formalleadership not only directly inuence followers andgroups but also have an indirect inuence by affect-ing the conditions under which followers and groupsinteract, such as through leaders inuence on cultureand climate, reward and performance managementsystems, and the normative and informational forcesthat they impose (Kozlowski and Klein 2000; Mischel1973; Salancik and Pfeffer 1978).

leaving much further validation work to be done. Ibriey summarize these ve concerns in the followingsections, and in doing so, I note future research thatis needed on invisible leadership to validate its tenetsand measure. Te concept of invisible leadership,however, is interesting, and thus I do hope that suchfuture research is conducted, but I hold reservationsuntil it is done.

The Newness of This New ConceptTere has been a proliferation of constructs in theleadership literature over the last 30 years, and manyauthors have been charged with packaging old wine(existing theoretical mechanisms and concepts) innew bottles (using new labels and wording), lead-ing to a lack of conceptual clarity in the eld. I amcertainly not stating that this is the approach taken byHickman and Sorenson, but it does call for authors

who are proposing new constructs to establish, boththeoretically and empirically, what their construct isand what it is not and, most importantly, to establishthat what it is differs signicantly from what is

already in the literature.

Te differentiation between the concept of invisibleleadership and similar theories in the leadership litera-ture is currently not adequately clear. Hickman andSorenson are certainly not the rst to propose a theoryfocusing on the emergence of informal and sharedleadership. As they rightly note, a somewhat similarposition was advanced by Mary Parker Follett as earlyas 1928, and various theories and conceptualizationsof shared leadership (Carson, esluk, and Marrone2007; Pearce and Conger 2003), distributed leader-ship (e.g., Gronn 2002), and similar models haveemerged over the last decade. Hickman and Sorensonstate that they based their concept of invisible leader-ship on 12 existing theories (see their gure 2.1), andin chapter 2, they provide some level of discussion ofhow a few of these 12 relate to or differ from invis-ible leadership. I would have liked to have seen morespecic discussion of the nature of the relationshipsbetween invisible leadership and these other 12 theo-ries, particularly to establish that this concept addsnew and unique theoretical understanding of whatconstitutes effective leadership.

More importantly, however, the authors provide noempirical evidence to establish convergent and discri-minant validity of the invisible leadership construct.Rigorous construct development requires that a newmeasure go through a series of measurement modelingtests to demonstrate that it is related to the measuresof conceptually similar constructs (convergent valid-ity) but, at the same time, is suffi ciently unique andcaptures conceptual phenomenon not represented inthose existing measures (discriminant validity) (Hinkin1995). Tese tests help ensure that the measure ismeasuring what you think it is (convergence) and


3/7

762 Public Administration Review Sep tem ber | October 2013

and maintenance from the vertical leader, sharedleadership is likely to fail (2004, 54). It is importantto recognize that Hickman and Sorenson do state that[t]here are, however, essential functions for positionalleaders, founders and informal leaders (13), yet theydo not articulate in their book specically what thesespecic functions are and how these functions coexist

with or interact with the forces of common purposethat they propose to be the motivating force forleadership (4).

In sum, given the canon of empirical research sup-porting the direct and indirect roles of formal leadersin creating purpose in organizations, we shouldhold judgment on the directional effects of invisibleleadership until some empirical ndings follow insupport. Yet Hickman and Sorenson provide impor-tant impetus for us to assess the direction of causalityin our models of leadership. As I stated earlier, thedirection of causality is quite likely recursive, and thusapproaches that argue either purpose leadership orleadership purpose are likely insuffi cient at best,

and both incorrect.

GeneralizabilityHickman and Sorenson are largely silent in theirbook as to what types and forms of organizationstheir model of invisible leadership applies to or isdescriptive of. Te majority of the examples that theyutilize in the text are from organizations such as socialmovements and charities that, on their face, have highintrinsic social value that is readily clear to employeesand may have attracted them to join such organiza-tions in the rst place. Even many business examplesthat they use, such as a restaurant dedicated to 9/11casualties, reects such intrinsic social value. We mustask, however, whether common purpose would be anequally powerful factor across the breadth of organiza-tions and majority of employers, particularly thosethat may reect more of a job versus a calling. Iscommon purpose what most drives leadership andperformance in departments of motor vehicles, sanita-tion departments, fast-food chains, textile plants,oil reneries, computer manufacturers, or big boxretailers? I nd it diffi cult to envision workers at ameatpacking company coming together because oftheir belief and commitment to the common purpose

with little or no inducement from their leaders (20).Given limitations of geographic and social mobility inthe general populace, it is likely incorrect to assumethat any majority of individuals have the luxuryor option to pursue careers that most fulll theirpassions.

Te sample used in Hickman and Sorensons researchto develop their measure of invisible leadership alsoappears not to be broadly representative. Tey chose21 organizations based on those companies pres-ence on the WorldBlu List of Most Democratic

Tus, unless a weight of evidence is offered for thedirectional effects of invisible leadership in the future,it is probably most appropriate to conceptualize lead-ership asboth a hierarchical and a collective process in

which formal and informal leaders as well as followersare active participants in shaping organizational reality(Carson, esluk, and Marrone 2007; Hannah, Lord,and Pearce 2011; Kozlowski and Bell 2003; Pearceand Conger 2003). Such an approach is proposedto be necessary to fully understand the inuence ofmultiple sources and levels of formal and informalleadership in groups (Morgeson, DeRue, and Karam2010). For example, research shows that the extentto which the formal team leader is authentic (e.g.,self-aware, transparent, moral, open, and balanced)inuences the extent to which authenticity emergesas a shared form of informal leadership among teammembers; when team members act authentically

with each other, this, in turn, leads to higher levels ofteamwork and performance (Hannah, Walumbwa,and Fry 2011). In sum, research suggests that leaderscan positively or negatively inuence the extent to

which individuals engage in shared leadership and theextent to which they connect with the organization(see Bass and Bass 2008), which should be recognizedin theories of leadership.

Yet formal leaders can also have deleterious direct andindirect effects on teams, such as abusive supervisors

who create contexts of fear, threat, and punishment(epper 2007). It is diffi cult to imagine that invisibleleadership could emerge and have positive effects insuch a toxic context. Indeed, we know that abusivesupervision is negatively related to the extent that fol-lowers identify with the organizations values (Hannahet al., forthcoming), which might suggest that abusivesupervisors could also disconnect followers from otherbeliefs, such as shared purpose.

Finally, we must ask ourselves the question, wheredoes the common purpose come from in the rstplace? We know that exemplary leaders, such as trans-formational and charismatic leaders, can create andconvey powerful purpose and vision in organizations(Bass and Bass 2008). Yet it is likely not as simple assuch a top-down approach, and indeed, it is possiblethat purpose could emerge from lower-level formal

or informal leaders in the organization or could evenbe imposed from outside the organization, such as acharity organization seeking to cure a disease. I thusagree with Hickman and Sorenson to an extent, but itis possible that even if the original locus of purpose isoutside the formal organization leaders, those formalleaders must at some point sanction, support, andresource the pursuit of that purpose, as well as estab-lish systems to sustain that pursuit over time. Tus,the role of senior leaders still holds necessary impor-tance. As Craig Pearce, a primary architect of sharedleadership theory, notes, Without ongoing support


4/7


5/7

764 Public Administration Review Sep tem ber | October 2013

have not thought deeply about leadership as a collec-tive process in which followers have an active role andin which both leaders and followers are engaged by acommon purpose. Tis book offers insights into thepotential of harnessing the power of collective purposeto achieve organizational goals. Much more theoreti-cal and empirical work is needed, however, to advancethis construct and its related measure.

ReferencesBass, Bernard M., with Ruth Bass. 2008.Te Bass Handbook of

Leadership: Teory, Research, and Managerial Practice. 3rd ed.New York: Free Press.

Carson, Jay B., Paul E. esluk, and Jennifer A. Marrone. 2007.Shared Leadership in eams: An Investigation of AntecedentConditions and Performance. Academy of Management Journal 50(5): 121734.

Collins, Jim. 2001. Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make theLeapAnd Others Dont. New York: HarperBusiness.

Gronn, Peter. 2002. Distributed Leadership as a Unit of Analysis.Leadership Quarterly 13(4): 42351.

Hannah, Sean ., Robert L. Lord, and Craig L. Pearce.

2011. Leadership and Collective Requisite Complexity.Organizational Psychology Review 1(3): 10427.

Hannah, Sean ., John M. Schaubroeck, Ann C. Peng, Robert G.Lord, Linda K. revino, Steve W. J. Kozlowski, Bruce J. Avolio,Nikolaos N. Dimotakis, and Joseph Doty. Forthcoming. JointInuences of Individual and Work Unit Abusive Supervisionon Ethical Intentions and Behaviors: A Moderated MediationModel. Journal of Applied Psychology. doi: 10.1037/a0032809.

Hannah, Sean ., Fred O. Walumbwa, and Louis W. Fry. 2011.Leadership in Action eams: eam Leader and Members

Authenticity, Authenticity Strength, and eam Outcomes.Personnel Psychology 64(3): 771801.

Hinkin, imothy R. 1995. A Review of Scale DevelopmentPractices in the Study of Organizations. Journal of Management21(5): 96788.

Kozlowski, Steve W. J., and Bradford S. Bell. 2003. Work Groupsand eams in Organizations . In Handbook of Psychology,vol.12, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, edited by WalterC. Borman, Daniel R. Ilgen, and Richard J. Klimoski, 33375.New York: Wiley.

Kozlowski, Steve W. J., and Katherine J. K lein. 2000. A Multilevel Approach to Teory and Research inOrganizations: Contextual, emporal, and EmergingProcesses. In Multilevel Teory, Research, and Methods inOrganizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions,

edited by Katherine J. Klein and Steve W. J. Kozlowski,390. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mischel, Walter. 1973. oward a Cognitive Social LearningReconceptualization of Personality.Psychological Review80(4):25283.

Morgeson, Frederick P., D. Scott DeRue, and Elizabeth P. Karam.2010. Leadership in eams: A Functional Approach toUnderstanding Leadership Structures and Processes. Journal of Management 36(1): 539.

Pearce, Craig L. 2004. Te Future of Leadership: CombiningVertical and Shared Leadership to ransform Knowledge Work. Academy of Management Executive18(1): 4759.

Most importantly, the authors provide no evidenceof what the measure of invisible leadership predicts.

Yet they state that [o]ur initial work demonstratesthat people and organizations benet when commonpurpose is the invisible leader (85). Some evidence ofthese benets is needed. Establishing the predic-tive validity (also called criterion-related validity) of anew measure is one of the core requirements of newconstruct development (Hinkin 1995). Terefore, itis unclear what the value of the measure is. Are rmsthat have higher scores on the invisible leadershipmeasure more productive, creative, higher performing,and so on? Until its ability to reliably predict impor-tant workplace outcomes in organizations is proven,organizations should be cautious.

Earlier in this review, I noted a level of skepticism,pending empirical testing, concerning whetherinvisible leadership is distinct from other leadershiptheories and thus adds a unique contribution to theliterature. oward that end, beyond establishing itspredictive validity, the authors should show that their

measure of invisible leadership explains outcomesabove and beyond similar measures, such as sharedleadership and transformational leadership, by run-ning analyses controlling for the effects of these othermeasures. Such a direct test of incremental predic-tive validity is needed to substantiate the authorsclaim that it is invisible leadership versus other moretraditional forms of leadership that is most importantto driving outcomes. Tat cannot be answered unlessthese constructs are pitted against one another toexplain the same outcomes in the same samples.

Tere also appear to be structural issues with theinvisible leadership measure that the authors presentfor use in the appendix. Teir own analyses show thatthe measure, empirically, only has four factors andthat only 14 of their survey items load on those fac-tors. Why the authors present seven factors and manymore items in chapter 4 is thus perplexing, as thereis no empirical basis presented for them. Te authorsprovide possible accounts for why their expectedfactor structure did not emerge (60), but the fact isthat the structure is not justied until it does emergeand emerges consistently across numerous samples.Further, beyond simple factor analysis, structural

model t tests and specications are not presented forthe proposed multifactor model. Regardless of theselimitations, the ndings from one study are insuffi -cient for validating a new measure and thus numerousvalidation studies are required to evidence the validityof the proposed invisible leadership measure.

ConclusionDespite the limitations that I present,Te Power of Invisible Leadershipmakes important contributionstoward expanding our thinking about the dynamics oforganizational leadership, particularly for readers who


6/7

Book Reviews 765

Salancik, Gerald R., and Jeffrey Pfeffer. 1978. A Social InformationProcessing Approach to Job Atti tudes and ask Design.

Administrative Science Quarterly 23(2): 22453.epper, Ben. 2007. Abusive Supervision in Work Organizations:

Review, Synthesis, and Research Agenda. Journal of Management33(3): 26189.

Pearce, Craig L., and Jay A. Conger, eds. 2003.Shared Leadership:Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership. Tousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications.

Resnick, Bruce G., and imothy L. Smunt. 2008. From Goodto Great to. . . . Academy of Management Perspectives 22(4):612.


7/7

C o p y r i g h t o f P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n R e v i e w i s t h e p r o p e r tc o n t e n t m a y n o t b e c o p i e d o r e m a i l e d t o m u l t i p l e s i t e s o r pc o p y r i g h t h o l d e r ' s e x p r e s s w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . H o w e v e r , a r t i c l e s f o r i n d i v i d u a l u s e .

the power of invisible leadership how a compelling common purpose inspires exceptional leadership

Documents