xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200409Ka 4500
controlfield tag 001 002069293
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 100420s2009 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0003188
Tuttle, Matthew D.
True north or traveled terrain? :
b an empirical investigation of authentic leadership
h [electronic resource] /
by Matthew D. Tuttle.
[Tampa, Fla] :
University of South Florida,
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 124 pages.
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2009.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
ABSTRACT: Authentic leadership is a new concept that is gaining both popularity and notoriety in the leadership literature. It is argued as a positive form of leadership that goes beyond traditional leadership styles in order to influence followers through genuine, ethical behavior. However, as a concept in its infancy, authentic leadership has yet to receive much empirical attention, and many researchers are skeptical of its value in what is seen as a saturated domain of leadership styles. This study offers a comprehensive approach to addressing this need. A new measure for authentic leadership was developed and validated through pilot testing. Through additional analyses using this new measure, it was discovered that authentic and transformational leadership were not empirically distinct. However, by combining these two measures into an authentic-transformational leadership construct, it was still possible to examine the effect of greater amounts of authenticity in the leadership role. It was found that authentic-transformational leadership was directly related to a number of employee attitudes, and these, in turn, were related to positive employee behaviors. Results of this study are discussed both in terms of future research in the area of authentic-transformational leadership as well as its impact on organizational effectiveness.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Advisor: Russell Johnson, Ph.D.
Structural equation modeling
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
True North or Traveled Terrain ? An Empirical Investigation of Authentic Leadership by Matthew D. Tuttle A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Psychology Colleg e of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Russell Johnson, Ph.D. Walter Borman, Ph.D. Stephen Stark, Ph.D. Joseph Vandello, Ph.D. Charles Michaels, Ph.D. Date of Approval: November 17 2009 Keywords: Authentic Transformati onal Tran sformational, Transactional Follower Motivations, Follower Behavior Structural Equation Modeling Copyright 2009, Matthew D. Tuttle
To my Grandfather One of the remaining members of a generation of authentic leaders.
Acknowledgments I would like to thank Darryl Scott, my boss and mentor, who took me under his wing and inspired me to research authentic leadership. I would also like to thank my cohort Anna, Ashley, Burcu, Matt, and Rob for their support and friendship through grad school, and for helping me see the light at the end of the tunnel. Hey, we all graduated! A big thank you to my committee Drs. Johnson, Borman, Stark, Vandello, and Michaels for their gui dance, especially Russ Johnson, who, despite the challenges of being a new professor with a large and growing number of students to advise, and having to work with me remotely from Atlanta, provided the support I needed to complete my dissertation. I would like to thank my Dad, my friends at The Home Depot, and the creators of SONA, Facebook, and Linked In for helping me collect multiple rounds of data. I probably could have done it without you, but it would have taken a lot longer! Finally, a sincere thank you to my family, my girlfriend Nata family for their constant support and encouragement throughout the dissertation process. This is something that I definitely could not have done without.
i T able of Contents List of Tables iv List of Figures v Abstract vi i Chapter One: Introduction and Literature Review 1 Brief History of Le adership Theory 3 Full Range of Leadership Model 5 Transformational Leadership 5 Transactional Leadership 6 Laissez faire Leadership 7 The Ethics of Transformational Leadership 8 Authen tic Leadership 13 Positive M oral Perspective 14 Self Awareness 15 Balanced P rocessing 16 Relatio nal Transparency 17 Aut hentic Behavior 17 Discriminant Validity of Authentic Leadership 18 Outcomes Associated with Ef fective Leadership 24 Follow er Perceptions 24 General L eader Impression 24 Satisfaction with the Leader 25 Follow er Motivations 26 Affective Supe rvisor Commitment 26 Coll ective Identity 28 Trus t in the Leader 30 Positive Psyc hological Capital 31 Foll ower Behaviors 32 T ask Performance 33 Organizational Cit izenship Behavior 3 5 Wor kplace Deviance 3 7 Overview of t he Present Study 3 9 Ch apter Two : Method 40 Sample 40 Procedure 40
ii Measures 41 Authe ntic Leadership 41 Transformat ional Leadership 41 Transact ional Leadership 42 Gener al L eader Impression 42 Satisfaction with the Leader 42 Affective Supe rvisor Commitment 43 Coll ective Identity 43 Trus t in the Leader 44 Positive Psyc hological Capital 44 T ask Performance 45 Organizational Citizenship Behavior 45 Wor kplace Deviance 46 Chapter Three : P ilot Testing 47 Pilot Study 1 47 Pilot Study 2 50 Results 65 Discussion 79 Theoretical Implications 79 Authentic transformational Leadership as a C onstruct 79 Authentic transformational L eadership and Psychological O utcomes 84 Authentic transformational Leadership and Follower Behavior 86 Practica l Applications 90 Limitations and Future Research 9 4 Conclusion 9 6 References 9 8 Appendices 10 6 Ap pendix A: Authentic Leadership Sca le Pilot Survey 10 7 Appendix B: Transformationa l Leadership Items 1 1 0 Appendix C: Transactional Leadership Items 1 1 1 Appendix D: General Leade r Impression Items 11 2 Appendix E: Affective Supervis or Commitment Items 11 3 Appendix F: Collect ive Identity Items 11 4 Appendix G: PsyCap Questionnaire Items 11 5 Appendix H: Employee Tas k Performance Items 11 6 Appendix I: Organizational Citize nship Behavior Items 11 7 Appendix J: Workplace Deviance Items 11 8
iii Appendix K: Models and Standardized Estimates for Pilot 2 Impression Man agement Comparisons 11 9 About the Author End Page
iv List of Tables Table 1 Summary of proposed hypotheses. 38 Table 2 Correlations and scale reliabilities for pil ot 2 study variables. 51 Table 3 Fit statistics for pilot 2 hypothesized and alte rnative models. 61 Table 4 Fit statistics for impress ion manageme nt comparison models 63 Table 5 Correlations and scale reliabilities for pri mary study variables. 66 Table 6 Fit statistics for H ypotheses 8 10. 78
v List of Figures Figure 1 Proposed model of the effects o f various leadership styles on organiza tional criteria. 23 Figure 2 Model and standardized estimates for measure of authentic leadership. 53 Figure 3 Model and standardized estimates for Hypothesis 1. 54 Figure 4 Model and standardized estimates for contingent reward alternative loading model (Model 2). 55 Figure 5 Model and standardized estimates for transactional transformational model (Model 3). 56 Figure 6 M odel and standardized estimates for authentic transformational model (Model 4). 57 Figure 7 Model and standardized estimates for authentic transactional model (Model 5). 58 Figure 8 Model and standardized estimat es for leadership factor model (Model 6). 59 Figure 9 Measurement model for subordina te rated variables. 67 Figure 10 Measurement model for supervisor rated variables. 68 Figure 11 Model for modified Hypotheses 2 7. 7 2 Figure 12 Hypothesized model for primary study with authentic Transformational leadershi p variable. 7 4 Figure 13 Alt ernative model for H ypothesis 8. 7 5 Figure 14 Alternative model for Hypothesi s 9 7 6 Figure 15 Alternative model for Hypothesis 10 7 7
vi Figure 16 A Model 1: Self promotion freely e stimated model. 11 9 Figure 16 B Model 2: Self promo tion equal cons traint model. 1 20 Figure 16 C Model 3: Intimidation freely estimated model. 1 21 Figure 16 D Model 4: Intimidation equal co nstraint model. 12 2 Figure 16 E Model 5: Ingratiation fre ely estimated model. 12 3 Figure 16 F Model 6: Ingratia tio n equal constraint model. 12 4
vii True North or Traveled Terrain? An Empirical Investigation of Authentic Leadership Matthew Tuttle ABSTRACT Authentic leadership is a new concept that is gaining both popularity and notoriety in the leadership liter ature. It is argued as a positive form of leadership that goes beyond traditional leadership styles in order to influence followers through genuine, ethical behavior. However, as a concept in its infancy authentic leadership has yet to receive much empiri cal attention and many researchers are skeptical of its value in what is seen as a saturated domain of leadership styles This study offers a comprehensive a pproach to addressing this need. A new measure for authentic leadership was developed and validate d through pilot testing. Through additional analyses using this new measure, it was discovered that authentic and transformational leadership were not empirically distinct. However, by combining these two measures into an authentic transformational leaders hip construct, it was still possible to examine the effect of greater amounts of authenticity in the leadership role. It was found that authentic transformational leadership was directly related to a number of employee attitudes, and these, in turn, were r elated to positive employee behaviors. Results of this study are discussed both in terms of f uture research in the area of authentic transformational leadership as well as its impact on organizational effectiveness.
1 Chapter One Introduction and Lite rature Review Authentic leadership is a new concept that is gaining both popularity and notoriety in the leadership literature. Although a concrete definition is yet to be accepted (Cooper, Scandura, & Schriesheim, 2005), Avolio, Luthans, and Walumbwa (20 04) describe authentic leaders as perspectives, knowledge, and strengths; aware of the context in which they operate; and Authentic leaders have also been described as credible, transparent, respectable, trustworthy, positive, ethical, committed, open, and direct (Avolio, Gardner, Walu mbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004) In short, authentic leadership is argued as a positive form of leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005) that goes beyond traditional leadership styles in order to influence followers through genuine, ethical behavior. In a time of i ncreasing corporate scandals, political deception, and heightened national security, it is not surprising that authenticity in leadership is openly welcomed. Although some critic s are skeptical of its value, authentic l eadership is argued as more than jus t a feel good, blanket response to the moral ineptitudes of certain leaders. That is, t he concept of authentic leadership hold s promise for bottom line organizational success as well For example, Bill George, CEO of a leading medical technology company, h as written books that detail the principles of authentic l eadership and how to
2 tie them in to personal and company goals. In his latest book (George, 2007) he describes his research and personal interviews with 125 top leaders and the effect that their le adership style has had on the bottom line These interviews form a picture of what it takes to develop authentic leaders and authentic companies and the benefits of doing so both in terms of workplace culture and organizational success. A s a concept in i ts infancy a uthenti c l eadership has yet to receive much empirical attention. What research does exist shows a link between perceptions of authentic l eadership and employee job satisfaction, work happiness, and organizational commitment (Jensen & Luthans, 2006). This is a good start; but there is a clear ne ed to expand on this research to test the relationship between authentic l eadership and a wide variety of outcomes The proposed study offers a comprehensive approach to addressing this need. There are t h ree major goals of this study. The first is to address current deficiencies in the authentic leadership literature. As previously mentioned, there is no clear definition for authentic leadership. Consequently, there is no rigorously validated scale for its measurement. This will be addressed by developing and testing a measure that is grounded in current theorizing on authentic leadership. The second goal is to examine the extent to which authentic leadership differs from other popular forms of leadership ( e.g. transactional, transformational), as this has not been tested empirically. As pointed out by Cooper, Scandura, and Schriesheim (2005), it is important to establish the uniqueness of this concept before discussing how it can be trained or developed. F inally, the effectiveness of a uthentic leadership will be examined using a variety of
3 organizational outcomes in order to assess its value in the workplace. Results of this study will provide both a solid foundation for future research in authentic leaders hip and a glimpse of its impact on organizational effectiveness. Brief History of Leadership Theory Leadership, in its b roadest sense, is the influence that one person, the leader, has on others to behave in a certain way (Yukl, 1998). Effective leaders p rovide strategic direction for the group or organization, motivate and coach poor performers, enforce and interpret organizational policies, and secure the necessary resources for work group or organizational functioning (Jex, 2002). Plainly stated the in fluence of a leader is very important, if not vital, to organizational success. What it takes to have such an influence has been the subject of scholarly debate for centuries, and has been given a great deal of empirical attention in more recent times. Dif ferent approaches to the study of leadership have evolved throughout the last half century, with each new approach building off of its predecessors. In general, leadership theory has moved from a focus on the traits of a leader, to the behaviors of the lea der, to a situational approach, where the most effective traits and behaviors depend on the situation the leader is in ( Kenny & Zaccaro, 1983 ). Most early leadership researchers argued that leaders who were effective had different inherent traits than th ose who were i neffective. The idea was then to identify the traits that effectiv e leaders possessed, and place into leadership positions those individuals wh o displayed these traits. However, b ecause m uch of this early research did not have very strong the oretical grounding was never fully reached. Researchers generally concluded that the effectiveness of a
4 leader depended on a number of variables, and the trait approach lost much of its influence during the 1 940s and 50s (Jex, 2002). Recent research has shown a bit of a comeback in this approach due to the use of more theoretically plausible traits (e.g., Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992). However trait based researchers have yet to address fundamental questions about the practical application of their research, such as whether or not traits can be learned and developed or used only for selection (Jex, 2002). While these questions do remain, the trait based approach has added a great deal in advancing the development o f leadership theory. Behavior based research further advanced our understanding of the leadership process by narrowing down leader traits or characteristics into specific behaviors that can be measured and trained. Some of the more influential research of this era came from T he Ohio State leadership studies (Fleishman, Harris, & Burtt, 1955). These researchers proposed a taxonomy where leader behaviors could be broken down into two basic dimensions initiating structure and consideration. Other researcher s (e.g., Likert, 1961; Blake & Mouton, 1964) quickly followed suit with similar behavioral dichotomies. However, w hile there was general agreement among researchers that tw o basic dimensions existed, there was a lack of agreement on the nature of the dimen sion s. In addition researchers adopting the behavior based approach ran into the same problem as those from earlier trait based approaches there was no universal set of behaviors that were effective for leaders in all situations. Thus, a common conclusi on from trait based and beh avior based research was that effective leadership depended on the situation that the leader was in, and the leader must change his or her behavior according to a number
5 of variables. These conclusions spawned a new stream of res earch that has become the dominant app roach in modern leadership theory The contingency or situational approach is based on the idea that the most effective traits or behaviors that a leader could possess or enact depend on the characteristic s of the si t uation. I to study the dynamics of the situation and determine which behaviors would work best. Most leadership theories proposed in the last 30 years are contingency theories (Jex, 2002). However, while the basic premise of this app r oach has been widely accepted, there is less agreement on the relative importance of its components. Some theories (e.g., Fiedler, 1967 ) propose that a certain behavioral style should be enacted wh en the situation calls for it, while o ther theories (e.g., House, 1971) argue that leaders are entirely capable of adapting their behavior to a given situation. I t is also not entirely clear which behaviors the leaders should change once the decision to act has been m ade. D espite these shortcomings the contingenc y approach is still considered the dominant paradigm in the study of leadership today Full Range of Leadership Model House and Aditya (1997) argued that one of the drawbacks in leadership research has been an oversimplification of the underlying factors for the conceptualization and measurement of leadership. In response to this argument, Antonakis, Avolio, and Range of Leadership model. This model consists of nine distin ct leadership factors five transformational, three tra nsactional and a nontransactional laissez faire style of leadership. Each is described below.
6 Transformational leadership Arguably the most popular leadership style in modern day research and pract ice is transformational leadership (Burns, 1978). The idea behind this leadership style is that certain leader behaviors and trai ts can be used to not only influence the subordinate, but inspire them to go above what they thought was possible. The unique components of transformational leadership have been analyzed by many researchers, mostly through the use of factor analysis. Avolio, Bass, and Jung (1999) argue d that four factors make transformational leadership distinct. The first, idealized influence r efers to the fact that these leaders are well respected, trusted, and have followers who identify with and wish to emulate them. This factor is commonly split into two subfactors (e.g., Avolio & Bass, 1991). Idealized influence attributed is the degree to which the leader displays charisma, confidence, and a focus on higher order ethics and ideals. Idealized influence behavior refers to the actions of the leader, and whether they are charismatic and centered on their beliefs, values, and sense of a missio n. The second factor inspirational m otivation followers by providing challenge and meaning to their work. The t hird, intellectual s timulation refers to promoting follower innovation through challenging as sumptions, and downplaying the ir mistakes. Finally individualized c onsideration refers to the ability of the lead er to act as a coach or mentor. Transactional leadership Transactional leadership has also been promoted in the past, but has been largely re placed by other theories (i.e., transformational) that are shown as more effective. Bass (1985) described transactional leaders as preferring risk
7 avoidance behaviors, operating strictly within the existing system or culture, paying a great deal of attenti on to time processes and efficiency, and generally preferring process over substance as a means to maintain control. There are three dimensions commonly associated with transactional leadership. Contingent reward is the degree to which the leader organizes constructive exchanges with the follower. They clarify their expectations and establish the level of reward once those expectations are met. Management by exception in general, is the degree to which a leader takes corrective action from the results of l eader follower transactions. This dimension is commonly broken down into two sub dimensions. Leaders who engage in active management by exception track follower behavior, anticipate problems, and take preventative actions before the omes detrimental. In contrast, leaders who engage in passive management by exception generally become disengaged until a problem has occurred, Laissez faire leadership The final set of behaviors p ropo sed by Avolio and Bass (1991) are those of l aissez faire leadership The authors defined this as the absence of any sort of a transaction, where the leader avoids makin g decisions, does not use his/her provided authori ty, and generally fails in respons ibilities. It is argued that laissez faire is necessary action. Research has generally been supportive of the Full Range of Leadership model. For example, Antonakis et al. (2003) found some supp ort for the validity of the model
8 Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X). They argued that by retaining all nine components in the model, pr actitioners are better able to coach leaders on which specific behaviors they should focus on to develop their leadership potential. For example, telling a leader that he or she should engage in more int ellectual stimulation with his/her followers is much his or her transformational behavior In addition to the ident ification of specific behaviors with in the Full Range of Leadership model, some researchers have place d these behaviors on a contin uum. The change. For example, Kuhnert and Lewis (1987) proposed that leaders transition from a transactional to a transform ational style with time in the leadership role. They focused on three stages In the first stage, labeled Imperial/Lower order Transactional t he leader is motivated by his/ her immediate personal goals and agendas. Once these have been established, the leader trans ition s to the Interpersonal/Highe r order Transactional stage where interpersonal connections and mutual obligations are used to further advance the Once this has been accomplished, the leader moves on to the Institutional/Transformational stage In this final stage the le ader operates from his or her personal standards and val ue system in order to achieve long term personal and organizational goals. Thus, according to this line of reasoning, the goal of any leader should be to become more transformational in their leadersh ip style through time. However, it is not always the case that transformational leadership results in positive o utcomes for all stakeholders
9 The Ethics of Transformational Leadership Several theorists have questioned the morality of the transformational l eadership style. Some have even categorized transformational leaders according to the ir behavioral integrity For example, Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) distinguished between pseudo transformational leaders and authentic transformational leaders, a nd compare d the two using the four components of transfo rmational leadership For idealized influence, the y argued that differences lie in the values for which the leader is idealized by the follower and how the leader uses his or her influence once it is gained W hile a n authentic transformational leader calls for everyone to work together to accomplish a goal, and therefore his or her values are seen as being in accord ance with the good of the group, a pseudo er sus group/out g roup) mentality with the possibility of sacrificing group cohesiveness. I t is also argued that once they have become idealized, pseudo transformational leader s will use their position (i.e., influence) for their own personal gain instead of developing followers T he authors also point out differences in inspirational motivation They argue that the inspirational appeals of authentic transformational leader s focus on the positives of the follower harmonized relationships, charity, a nd good works while pseudo transformational leaders are more likely to focus on conspiracies, unreal dangers, insecurities, and excuses to get what they want. While aut hentic transformational leaders believe and act according to the good of the group in or der to inspire and motivate followers, pse udo transformational leaders give the outward appearance of the same behavior, but are privately concerned about the good they can achieve for themselves.
10 The thi rd component the authors use for comparison is intel lectual stimulation. They argue that pseu do transformational leaders place more importance on their authority than on logic when making and enacting decisions. They also take credit for the successful ideas of others, while using them as scapegoats when id eas fail. Furthermore, w hereas authentic transformational leaders gain follower support through the merits of their arguments, pseu do transformational leaders set and control the agenda in order to manipulate the values of importance to the follower. The final component that is argued to be different between these two types of transformational leaders is individualized consideration. The authors state that while authentic transformational leaders are genuinely concerned about developing their followers int o leaders, pseudo transformational leaders are more concerned about maintaining th e dependence of their followers, expect ing blind obedience and trying to enhance their stat us by maintaining distance between themselves and their followers. While the authe ntic transformational leader is conc erned about helping followers become succession, an inauthentic, pseudo transformational counterpart seeks to maintain a parent child relationship with his or her follow ers. Building upon the work of Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) Price (2003) develop ed a more sufficient response to the ethical concerns of transformational leadership by further defining authentic and pseudo transformational leadership. Using theories propos ed by Aristotle (1985), Price argued for t hree different types of pseudo transformational leadership. The first, labeled incontinent pseudo transformational leadership is when
11 leaders have a small amount of commitment to altruistic values, but still act a gainst them in order to satisfy their own self interests. These leaders can be motivated by the values reflected in the interests of others; however, these values are usually insufficient in the face of a strong temptation to act on their own self interest s. The second version, labeled base pseudo transformational leadership is when leaders are committed to their egoistic values, and their actions reflect these values. The base pseudo actions are true to self, and therefore authen tic; however, he or she is true to an inner self that is not in line with group or organizational goals. A third version, labeled opportunistic pseudo transformational leadership is when leaders sometimes act in ways that are in line with the intere sts of others, however, this alignment has the ultimate goal wn interests. Price (2003) points out that all three forms of pseudo transformational leadership assume a volitional account of ethical failures of leadership. That is, these leaders recognize what is the moral thing to do, but nevertheless engage in unethical behavior for their own self interests. Opportunistics will care about justice or equality, for example, only when it will ultimately satisfy their own self interests, ba se leaders will not care about these values at all, and incontinents will simply care to o little about these values. Going beyond the specific differences between authentic transformational leaders and pseudo transformational leaders proposed by Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) and Price (2003), other researchers have criticized transformational leadership on more general ethical terms. For example, some aut hors plainly state that transformational leadership alization of an idyllic leader, through
12 the use of impression management (e.g., Snyder, 1987). Others believe that it manipulates followers into thinking that the sacrifices they are making will ultimately lead to positive outcomes, while in actuality thei r actions go against their own best From an organizational standpoi nt, some believe that it goes against the tenets of organizational learning and development such as participative leadership and decision mak ing, equality, and group consensus initiatives (e.g., McKendall, 1993). Finally, from a broader societal perspective it is argued that transformational leadership lacks the checks and balances needed from a diversity of interests, influences, and power th at would prevent a dictatorship or the exploitation of a minority group by the majority (e.g., Keeley, 1995). In summary transformational leadership is mostly seen as a highly effective form of leadership, and one that should be desired and developed thro career. However, due to the nature of this particular form of leadership it is easy to see where the leader can become manipulative and unethical if his or her motives are not aligned w ith the good of the group. Efforts have been made to separate the positive characteristics of transformational leaders from the negative characteristics, but these dimensions are theoretically unclear and empirically unexamined Thus, there remains a need to define what it means to be an ethical, positive leader. This argument has recently shifted from the domain of transformational leadership into discussions of a n ew leadership construct called authentic l eadership.
13 Authentic Leadership Using their combi ned academic backgrounds on leadership and positive psychology, Fred Luthans and Bruce Avolio (2003) looked to develop a new, positive approach to leadership that address es as the ethical issues of prev ious leadership styles. They called this new approach authentic leadership They proposed that those who own their personal experiences and contemporary times, where the environment is dramatically changing, where the rules that have guided how we operate no longer work, and where the best leaders will be transparent with their intentions, having a seamless link between their espoused values, 242). It is argued that without authentic leadership, there is a high risk of egocentric control and the exploitation of one group for the benefit of another. Furthermore, it is argued that the exhibited behavior of authentic leaders serves as a model an d a source of inspiration for followers to develop themselves into leaders. Although there is yet to be agreement on a universal definition, there is agreement on what constitutes many of the core elements of authentic leadership. In a special issue of The Leadership Quarterly dedicated to the advancement of authentic leadership theory, Avolio and Gardner (2005) reviewed current definitions and expanded on the work o f Kernis (2003) to arrive at five theoretical dim ensions of authentic leadership: positive m oral perspective, self awareness, balanced processing, relational transparency, and authentic behavior.
14 Positive moral perspective This dimension refers to the fact that authentic leaders draw upon a reserve of positive personal resources (e.g., ethics, moral capacity, confidence, optimism) in order to make decisions where these factors come into play. Although the concept of authentic leadership itself is in the early stages of development, this dimension has already begun to draw its fair share of contr oversy. In his original esteem. Much of what is now defined as authentic lea concept of authenticity. However, a positive moral perspective dime nsion was never mentioned in his research Furthermore, this dimension is not seen as necessary for authenticity by some researchers (e.g., Cooper et al., 2 005; Shamir & Eilam, 2005; descriptor authentic making it more difficult to operationalize authentic leadership in subsequent research. However, other researchers (e.g., Lu thans & Avolio, 2003; May, Chan, Hodges, & Avolio, 2003) assert that this moral component is inherent in authentic l eadership and its development. Avolio and Gardner (2005) even go so far as to say that cru cial to the emerging work on authentic leadership development [italics added] It could be argued that much of the current controversy has to do with the y Individuals can be authentic, as defined by Kernis (2003), without having a positive moral perspective. That is, they can be aware of whom
15 they are, accepting of their positive and negative aspects, act according to t heir true selves, and be open and truthful in close relationships. However, leaders, especially positive leaders, are responsible not only for themselves, but also for the welfare of others. operating from is also grounded in a positive moral perspective where actions are dictated by moral capacity, efficacy, courage, and resiliency (i.e., May et al., 2003). Thus, authentic leadership is a concept that represents not onl y the individual authenticity of the virtues. Self awareness The second dimension is the idea that leaders are kee nly aware of who they are and take the time to refle ct upon their thoughts, values, emotions, and goals. According to Silvia and Duval (2001), this occurs when individuals are cognizant of their own existence, and what c onstitutes that existence for the context in which they operate over time. Avolio and Ga rdner (2005) argue that leader self awareness is not a destination point, but an emerging process where one continually comes to understand his or her unique talents, strengths, sense of purpose, core values, desires, and beliefs. A lthough authentic leader ship theory is in its beginning stages, a good deal of attention has been paid to this particular dimension. For example, Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, and Walumb w a (2005) identify four elements of self awareness that they argue are especially relevant to the development of authentic leadership. value s They argue that while values are learned through socialization processes and serve to benefit groups and larger social units, once they are internalized they become an
16 integral pa rt of the self. awareness rega rding his or her values becomes a k ey component to authenticity. The second element s cognitions regarding his or her identity According to the authors, leader identification is the proce ss through which individuals incorporate the role of leader into their interpersona l identities (i.e., their i dentity in relation to others). A uthentic leaders see themselves both as leaders and as positive role models. The third element of self awareness is in the emotions of the leader. Based largely on the tenets of emotional intelligence ( Goleman, 1995) they argue that authentic leaders are in touch with their emotions and their effects on themselves and others, and that this recognition assists authen tic leaders in making value based decisions. Finally, the leader s motives or goals are argued as part of their self awareness. The authors argue that, as part of their motives and goals, authentic leaders wi ll seek self verification, self improvement and greater congruence between their actual and ideal selves Balanced processing The third dimension of authentic leadership has to do with the way the leader handles self relevant information. While other leaders may belittle or entirely ignore constructiv e feedback, authentic leaders balance both positive and negative personal feedback and see both types of information as opportunities for development Kernis (2003) explains that this dimension involves not denying, distorting, exaggerating, or ignoring p rivate knowledge, internal experiences, and externally based and negative aspects, attributes, and qualities.
17 R elational transparency The fourth dimension is a gener al openness and trust in relationships. Authentic leaders share information, personal and otherwise, with their authenticity Kernis (2003) explains that it involves endorsing the importance of close others to see the real you, both good and bad. Toward that end, authentic relations involve a selective process of self disclosure and the development of mutual intimacy and trust. In short, relational authenticity means being genui relationships with close others. Authentic behavior The final dimension invol ves the leader acting upon his or her expressed beliefs a nd commitments. The idea here is that a uthentic leaders are driven by their own moral compass instead of external motivations such as powe r, acceptance, or financial gain. While research ers propose different sources for the development of the moral compass Gardner et al., 2005; Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005), the important thi ng to keep in mind is that behaviors are driven by intrinsic values as opposed to external rewards. This is arguably the most intuitive dimension for authentic leadership, and what most people would constitute individual authenticity To better understan d authentic leadership and to build a foundation for testable hypotheses, authors have begun to formulate theoretical models of authentic leadership development. For example, Gardner et al. (2005) propose a model in which self awareness and self regulation are central elements in authentic leadership. Additionally, to authentic leadership, and that an inclusive, ethical, caring, and strength based
18 organizational cli mate moderates the effects of the leader on his or her followers. Lastly, they propose that, through positive modeling, the authentic leader will develop follower trust, engagement, workplace well being and veritable, susta inable performance. Ilies et al. (2005) propose a second model of authentic leaders hip In their view, eudaemonic well being (an Aristotelian concept encompassing personal expressiveness, self realization/development, flow experiences, and self efficacy/self esteem) serves as an antecedent to authentic leadership. It is then argued that authentic leaders will develop eudaemonic well being in their followers through (1) personal and organizational identification, (2) positive emotions contagion, (3) positive behavioral modeling (4) supporting self determination, and (5) positive social exchanges. These models serve as a foundation for further development of the theory of authentic leadership. It is i mportant to note, however, that although these models help clarify the processe s and outcomes of authentic leadership, they are only theoretical in nature and have yet to be tested empirically. Discriminant Validity of Authentic Leadership Although it has thus far received some favorable press, authentic l eadership does not sit well with all researchers. For example, Cooper et al (2005) warn about the dangers of getting caught up in this promising new construct before it is has been adequately researched. Specifically, they argue that researchers must: (1) agree upon a definition an d a solid measure of the construct, (2) determine its discriminant validity, and (3) identify relevant outcomes befo re (4) deciding whether or not authentic l eader ship can and should be trained. oint has been addressed through
19 different s treams of research. Recall Avolio and Gardner five dimensions for authentic leadership. These five dimensions serve as both a definition of authentic leadership and a solid foundation for future research in the area. As note d by leadership development and performance that helps to explain the underlying processes and factors by which authentic leaders and their followers can positively impact sus tained In light of this work a group of researchers (Endrissat, Muller & Kaudela Baum, 2007) recently conducted a large qualitative study in search of the meaning of leadership with revealing results They point ed e the original aim of the study was to early from the interviews as a central issue. In other words, the topics of authenticity and integrity came to us rather unexpec tedly, and it was only after they became evident that we directed our attention to them and started to review the The results of their study add further support for the dimensions proposed by Avolio and Gardner (2005). In con ducting interviews with leaders from a variety of industries and organization sizes ( N = 26) the authors found a great deal of overlap between what is basic form, and what has been defined as authentic leadership. T he au thors found five separate categories that reflect the common understanding of leadership for those interviewed. It was state d that many interviewees identified
20 of leadership. This is very similar to the concept of self awareness (Avolio & Gardner, 2005), in that both concepts point to the need fo r the individual to know who they are and how they stand on different issues The second category and explained as consistently putting into Recall that Avol io and commitments. Thus the second category is very similar to the authentic behavior dimension of authentic leadership. The third category that the authors found was labeled Although not elf awareness sub dimensions of identity and emotions, where the leader identifies him or her self as a leader and positive role model and also shows emotional awareness. The fourth category, o remain approachable and transparency, both arguing for the importance of opennes s and trust in relationships at work. Finally, Endrissat et al (2007) state that at the center of leadership understanding is They say that leadership is seen as successful if the leader is true to others as well as themselv es, and if the leader acts according to his or her beliefs.
21 In essence, this final category is inclusive of the other four categories, and reflects what These results support further develop ment of authentic leadership for multiple reasons. domain, and thus the importan ce of studying it empirically. Second, as Cooper et al. (2005) point out, qualitative is better than quantitative rese arch when there is little existing researc h on which to base hypotheses. Third from these results, one can see heavy overlap in what is though t of as leadership in a modern and general form, and what is being defined as authentic leade rship in the literature. I n the preliminary stages of authentic leadership theory, it is good to know that theore tical definitions of the construct are now being s upported by qualitative research. second point alludes to a current debate regardin g the discriminant validity of authentic l eadership when compared to existing forms of leadership. Specifically, researchers argue that this new conc ept has heavy o verlap with the existing dimensions of transformational lea dership. Because of this they do not see the value in pursuing this new concept, and thereby creating new literature in what is seen as an already saturated leadership domain. Howev er, by dismissing authentic l eadership entirely, these researchers may be missing a key opportunity to see which leadership factors are most effective in driving positive employee behavior. That is, most pro ponents of authentic l eadership (e.g., Avolio & G ardner, 2005) admit that there is high overlap
22 comprised of the necessary elements of leadership which drive employee behavior. Thus, there is a n eed to separate the effects of authentic l eadership from ot her forms of leadership (e.g., t ransformational) to see if this new construct is truly a valuable addition to the leadership literature. A model of the pr oposed relationships between authentic and transformational leadership is presented on the left side of Figure 1. As can b e seen, it is proposed that these are two independent styles of leadership. As pointed out by Avolio and Gardner ntic 329). In differentiating between the two styles, these au thors state that while transformational leaders may use their own self awareness as a primary means of influence (as authenti c leaders do), they may also be able to transform oth ers through powerful visions, stimulating ideas, or by uplifting the needs of followers. In other words, they argue that transformational leadership may include authentic leaders hip behaviors, but does not have to in order to be effective. Luthans and Avolio (2003), on the other of overlap between these two constructs, however, this level of convergence is not well understood and has not been tested empirically. Phase I of the current study addresses this gap in current research by examining the degree of convergent and discrimina nt validity between authentic leadership and other related leadership forms, namely transformational and transactional leadership.
23 Figure 1 Proposed model of the effects of various leadership styles on organizational criteria. Taking more of a macro if researchers are able to empirically discriminate authentic leadership from other constructs, they can continue to move forward with their research efforts and development initi direct comparisons of authentic leadership with other leadership constructs. Other researchers have called for similar comparisons (e.g., Avolio et al., 2004; Luthans & Avolio, 2003; May et al. 2003; Wood, 2008 ). As previously discussed, transformational and transactional leadership are two of the most empirically examined constructs in modern leadership literature. Therefore, comparing these two leadership construct s to authentic leadership would not only help clarify the nature of this new construct, but would also address a clear gap in Follower Motivations Leadership Style Follower Behavior s Follower Perceptions H9 H10 H8 H7 H6 H5 H4 H3 H2 H1 Authentic Leadership Transformational Leadership General Leader Impression Satisfaction w/ Leader Affective Supervisor Commitment Trust in Leader Positive Psychological Capital Organizational Citizenship Behavior Task Performance Workplace Deviance Collective Identi ty
24 the leadership literature. In the current study, t he following hypothesis regarding these three leadership constructs was proposed: H ypothesis 1: A measure of authentic l eadership is distinguishable from measures of transformational and transactional leadership when factor analyzed Outcomes Associated with Effective Leadership Leader behavior can affect the follower in a variety of ways both positively and negatively One of the main objectives for the leader is to influence follower behavior toward organiza tional goals. However, this effect is neither entirely direct nor immediate. That is, while leaders can ultimately influence the actions of their followers, it is on ly through a series of factors that this effect takes place. Researchers have called for drive follower behavior (e.g., Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993) and it is a goal of this study to address this cal l. The following sections describe perceptions and motivations on the part of the follower that are influenced by the leader. Later sections discuss the effect of follower motivations on their behavior. Follower Perceptions General leader impression. In or der to be an effective leader, one must first be Although this seems fairly intuitive, this topic has been given little empirical attention to date. As described above, theories about what makes an individual a leader h ave been the topic of debate for centuries. Throughout this time, it has become apparent that what was once the norm for the ideal leader, for
25 However, the modern day impressio n of a leader has not been examined to any great extent. Research by Endrissat et al. (2007) helps shed some light on the matter. As a qualitative design. They found heavy overlap between general components of leadership, as described by participants, and the dimensions of authentic leadership proposed by Avolio and Gardner (2005). be more closely related to authentic leadership t han to other leadership styles. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 2: (a) Authentic leadership is positively related to general leader impression, and (b) this relationshi p is stronger than the one between transformational leadership and general leader impression Satisfaction with the leade r discussed much in the literature, satisfaction with leadership may pla y a large role in employee behavior It is therefore important to study which leader behaviors are more likely to elicit higher levels of satisfaction from the follower. Researchers addr essing this issue have arrived at similar results For example, Judge, Pic c olo, and Ilies (2004 ) conducted a meta analysis on behaviors from T he Ohio State leadership studies ( i.e., consideration and initiating structure ) and found that they both had signi ficant relationships with follower satisfaction (a composite of employee satisfaction with leadership and job satisfaction). Although they were both significant, consideration (.48) had a stronger relationship than initiating structure (.29), suggesting th at employee centered behaviors have a stronger relationship with follower satisfaction than job
26 centered behaviors. Recall that transactional leaders are more concerned with process factors and abiding by set rules that dictate their actions with followers and that transformational leaders show great er levels of care (i.e ., individualized consideration) for their followers. However, as pointed out by Bass and Steidlmeier (1999), transformational leaders may engage in individualized consideration only to ma intain with the leader will decrease. A uthentic leaders on the other hand, value close relationship s with followers (i.e., relational transparency) and act according to this value (i.e., authentic behavior). will d iminish due to false pretenses. Thus, the fol lowing hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 3: (a) Authentic leadership is positively related to satisfaction with leadership, and (b) this relationship is stronger than the one between transformational leadership and employee satisfaction with le adership Follower Motivations Affective supervisor commitment. Organizational commitment is, in a This construct has been studied extensively in the I/O psychology litera ture, and has been linked to a variety of antecedents and organizational outcomes. In the leadership literature specifically, a significant relationship has been found for transformational (e.g., Lee, 2005; Rai & Sinha, 2000), transactional (Nguni et al ., 2006), and authentic leadership (Jensen & Luthans, 2006), and the organizational commitment of the employee. Along with its global measurement, organizational
27 commitment has also been broken down into three specific dimensions (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Affect ive commitment is when the employee has a positive emotional attachment to the organization. Continuance commitment refers to the employee being committed to the organization because he or she thinks that losing organizational membership would be costly. F inally, normative commitment refers to the employee remaining with the organization due to feelings of obligation. only be committed, but to have a genuine, positive commitment t values and goals. It is less desirable for the employee to be committed due to the relative costs of leaving or a felt obligation to the company. When the employee is emotionally committed, his or her behavior is more likely to align with orga nizational goals. For example, in a recent meta analysis (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002), it was found that affective commitment had a stronger relationship than continuance or normative commitment to many positive organizational outcome s, such as attendance, performance, and OCB. Strong positive correlations were also found between many work experience variables and the affective commitment of the employee. Therefore, in order to increase the affective commitment of the employee, the org anization should provide a supportive work environment ( e.g., Eisenberger, Huntington, Hu tchison, & Sowa, 1986). One of the ways this could be achieved is through strong, supportive leadership (Meyer et al ., 2002).
28 As it is likely that the employee will b e affectively committed to the organization that provides a supportive work environment, at a more specific level, it is likely that the employee will be committed to the leader (supervisor) that is part of the supportive work environment. Although the dis tinction between commitment to the organization and commitment to the supervi sor is not a common area of focus research hi ghlights the importance of it being so. For example, Becker and Kernan (2003) found that when controlling for continuance and normati ve commitment, affective supervisor commitment was related to employee in role performance, while affective organizational commitment was t is also likely that the employee will be highly committed to the s upervisor that shows him or her consideration (i.e., transformational leadership). However, as pointed out by Bass and Steidlmeier (1999), this consideration may not always be genuine. Therefore, the employee will likely be even more committed to the super visor when the consideration shown is based on the genuine values of the leader, as is the case with authentic leadership. Thus the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 4: (a) Authentic leadership is positively related to affective supe rvisor commitment, and (b) this relationship is stronger than the one between transformational leadership and affective supervisor commitment Collective i dentity. Although leadership effectiveness is typically on others (Chemers, 2001), rarely is this influence measured in terms of follower psychological processes. In other words, while there is a fair amount of literature on leader traits and behavior, and
29 the organizational outcomes of effective leadership, t here is still much to be gained by focusing on the mediating psychological effects that the leader has on identit y or group orientation. Existing research on the topic of co llective identity supports the notion that leaders can elicit this effect in their followers For example, Shamir, House, and Arthur (1993) proposed a model of the motivational effects of charismatic leadership. As part of the model, they propose that char ismatic leader behaviors engage the self Specifically, th self concepts (p. 586). Building o n the theoretical work of Shamir et al Paul, Costley, Howell, Dorfman, and Trafimow (2001) found that both charismatic and integrative (charismatic plus collective self co ncepts (i.e., the likelihood of thinking about themselves as a group, rather than independent individuals). Furthermore, i n a recent review article on leadership and identity, van K nippenberg, van Knippenberg, De C remer, and Hogg (2004) present ed a number of studies that support ed the relationship between leader behavior and the social identification or collective self construal of the follower Each of these articles is supportive of a link between leadership and follower collective identity. However, the se studies only examined certain types
30 of leader behavior, namely charismatic and transformational leade rship In summarizing their review, van Knippenberg et al. (2004) point to the need to study leader behaviors that have been either ignored or understud ied in leadership research within the context of follower identity (p. 849). The current study provides an excellent opportunity to address this need by testing a leadership style that is only beginning to receive empirical attention. As is the case with charismatic and transformational leadership, i t is thought that leaders who engage in authentic leadership will also elicit the psychological effect of collective identity in their followers. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 5: A uthentic leadership is positively related to collective identity Trust in the leader In organization s followers depend upon the ir leaders to reward them for their performance, usually in the form of promotions, salary increases, or other inc entives. Because the leader plays a large part in securing and providing these incentives, trust between the employee and the leader becomes an important issue. It follows, then, that if employees perceive the leader as having attributes that promote trust they are more likely to rate them as effective. Dirks and Ferrin (2002) conducted a meta analysis on the level of trust in leadership and its impact for the organization. Using research from the past forty years, they examined both the antecedents and th e outcomes of trust. T hey found a significant relationship for both transformational leadership ( = .72 ) and transactional leadership ( = .59) as antecedents to trust in leadership. They explain that transformational leaders show more individualized concern with their followers, while transactional leaders are more concerned with making sure employe es
31 are rewarded fairly for their efforts. Thus, both are seen as effective for establishing trust, but individual concern may be seen as more trustworthy than contingent reward. Adding to these findings, leaders may be seen as even more trustworthy wh en th ey show individual concern and this individual concern is genuine. For example, leaders who engage in authentic leadership are open and forthcoming in close relationships (i.e., relational transparency). They take the time to get to know their followers, s howing high levels of individual concern. However, their motives behind this behavior are not self serving, as would be the ca se if a transformational leader feigned concern for the employee in an effort to advance his or her own agenda (e.g., Bass & Steid lmeier, 1999) Rather, the leader is truly concerned about the employee because he or she looks out for the good of the gr oup (i.e., positive moral perspective) and acts according to this value (i.e., authentic behavior). Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 6: (a) Authentic leadership is positively related to trust in leadership, and (b) this relationship is stronger than the one between transformational leadership and employee trust in leadership Positive psychological capit al. Arguing that human resources departments are rarely given their due when it comes to bottom line impact, Luthans and Youssef (2004) re cently advanced the concept of positive psychological c ap ital. Drawing on this work and on the emerging positive appro ach to managing human resources (i.e., positive organizational behavior), Luthans Youseff, and Avolio (2007) further refined the concept of positive psychological capital. They define d positive psycho logical state of dev elopment [that] is characterized by: (1) having confidence (self efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at
32 challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future; (3) persevering towa rd goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and The se authors argu e that these resources are measurable, developable, and just as important to the bottom line as financial, structural, or technological capital. It may also be the case that the factors associated with positive psychological capital are more easily develo ped through certain forms of leadership. Indeed Luthans and Avolio (2003) describe authentic leaders as confident, hopeful, optimistic, and resilient (p. 243). Additionally it has been argued that one of the ways that positive psychological capital can b e developed is through behavioral modeling of the leader by the follower ( e.g., Luthans & Avolio, 2003; Luthans & Youssef, 2004; Gardner et al., 2005). Thus, to the extent that the leader displays the characteristics of psychological capital, it is likely that the follower will also display these characteristics Therefore, t he following hypothesis is proposed: Hy pothesis 7 : Authentic leadership is positively related to po sitive psychological capital Follower Behaviors Just as leadership can in fluence what the employee thinks, it is also likely to influence what the employee does. In line with Lord and Brown (2004), I proposed that follower motivation mediates the effects of leadership styles on follower behavior. The outcomes to be examined gen erally represent the type of behavior that is desired from the employee by the organization task performance, organizational citizenship behavior
33 (OCB), and (a lack of) workplace deviance In the sections below, I discuss the motivations that are related t o each of these behavior s Because existing research supports many of the relationships between follower motivation and behavior my presentation of them is relatively brief. Task performance. It is important for organizations in a competitive business en vironment to maintain a high level of performance from their employees. Although the link between leader behavior and employee performance has been found in a number of studies (e.g., Meyer et al ., 2002 ; Conger, Kanungo, & Menon, 2000; Podsadoff et al ., 19 90 ), it is a goal of this study to investigate the process through which this relationship occurs. One of the mechanisms through which leader behavior affects employee performance that Meyer et al (2002) found a significant meta analytic relationship between a supportive work environment (inclusive of strong leadership) and affectiv e commitment, and between affective commitment and job performance. Furthermore, Becker and Kernan (20 03) found that affective supervisor commitment was related to employee in role performance after controlling for other forms of commitment. Thus, leader behavior may inspire affective commitment from the employee, which may then result in higher levels of ta sk performance. Relationships between leader behavior and task performance may also be mediated by follower trust. As mentioned above, Dirks and Ferrin (2002) conducted a meta analysis on trust in leadership. In the article, they present ed a
34 f ramework where leader actions le d to employee trust, which then le d to certain behavioral outcomes. Drawing on the logic of social exchange, they argue d that employees are willing to reciprocate the care and consideration shown by the leader in ways that benefit th e organization. One of the ways this behavior is reciprocated is through increased job performance from the employee. Indeed, across 21 studies, these authors found an overall significant relationship between trust in leadership and employee job performanc e (both objectively and subjectively measured). Lastly, positive psychological capital, a relatively new construct, is also relevant for task performance, yet there has yet to be much empirical support for this assumption. To address this need, Luthans, A volio, Avey, and Norman (2007) developed a measure that assessed the construct both globally and at the facet level. Using this measure, the authors examined the self rated job performance of employees. In multiple studies, they found that positive psychol ogical capital was indeed related to employee job performance. Also recall that authentic leaders have been described as having each dimension of positive psychological capital (i.e., hope, optimism, confidence, and resiliency Luthans & Avolio, 2003) and, through positive modeling by the leader, these traits are developed by the follower (e.g., Luthans & Avolio, 2003; Luthans & Youssef, 2004; Gardner et al., 2005). T hus, leader behavior may develop positive psychological capital in the follower, which the follower may then use to increase job performance. In line with the aforementioned reasoning, the following hypothesis is proposed:
35 Hypothesis 8: Leadership style has an indirect effect on task performance that is mediated by (a) affective super visor commitment (b) trust and (c) positive psychological capital Organizational citizenship behavior. It is desirable for any organization to have employees that go above and beyond their own job roles (e.g., Hogan, Rybiki, & Motowidlo, 1998) Employee s who engage in orga nizat ional citizenship behavior go above and be yond using five general forms of behavior (Organ, 1988) Altruism is what is typically thought of as helping or prosocial behavior. Courtesy is a basic consideration for others. Sportsmansh complaining about minor problems or inconveniences. Conscientiousness is commonly the workplace, with behaviors such as arriving on time to meetings. Finally, c ivic virtue is a behavior performed for the good of the organization or workgroup, instead of a specific individual. The relationship between leadership style and organizational citizenship behavior has been examined in past studies. Nguni, Sleegers, and D enessen (2006), for ex ample, used a global measure of OCB and found that transformational and transactional lea dership were both related to citizenship behavior with transformational leadership having greater effect sizes. Other studies have also supporte d the relationship between transformational leadership and OCB (e.g., Chaoping, Hui, & Kan, 2006 ; Purvanova, Bono, & Dzieweczynski, 2006 ) Using the principles of social exchange theory, it is likely that positive leader behavior results in greater O CB due to its focus on the employee, with the employee engaging in OCB in return for fair treatment.
36 The fair treatment shown by the leader may have other, similar effects as well. As discussed above, a significant relationship has been found between leader beh avior a nd follower collective identity (Shamir et al., 1993; Paul et al., 2001) self concept becomes more aligned with the mission of the leader or group Additionally, studies have shown employee collective identity as a mediator bet ween leader behavior and employee performance (e.g., Conger et al. 2000). Thus, leader behavior may create a he follower and leader, which then result s in leader centered or group centered employee behavior. O CBs are one such se t of behaviors that benefit the workgroup T involves group performance (which, in an organizational set ting is usually the case), OCBs may also serve as a form of leader centered behavior. Thus, leader behavior may el icit a sense of collective identity which results in increased OCB. In addition to collective identity, trust likely also relates to OCB. Dirks and Ferrin (2002) examined the relationship between employee trust in leadership and OCB. They found a signifi cant meta analytic relationship between these two variables. In addition Podsakoff, MacKensie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) tested the effects of transformational leadership on OCB, and found that this effect was mediated by Thus, leadership may create follower trust, which then results in follower OCB. In light of these findings the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 9: Leadership style has an indirect effect on OCB that is mediated by ntity, and (b) trust in the leader
37 Workplace deviance. According to Rotundo and Sackett (2002), workplace deviance, task performance, and OCB represent the three major dimensions of employee ary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and in so doing threatens the well being of an This behavior is a major problem for organizations, with estimated annual cos ts of $6 billion to $200 billion in the United States alone (Greenberg, 1997; Murphy, 1993; Vardi & Weitz, 2004). Thus, examining factors that help suppress these behaviors is imp ortant, if not vital, to Studies have shown that leadership does have an impact on workplace deviance. For example, in a recent meta analysis, Hershcovis, Turner and Arnold, et al. (2007) examined the link between leadership and workplace aggression. They found a significant relationship between in terpersonal injustice (i.e., perceived treatment from the supervisor during enactment of formal procedures and the level of respect, honesty, and dignity shown to the employee) and workplace aggression, and between poor leadership (i.e., perception of supe rvisor hostile verbal and non verbal behavior, overcontrol, authoritarian management, and lack of charismatic leadership) and workplace aggression. Thus, poor leadership results in certain forms of deviance in the workplace. However, the inverse may also b e true. That is, a negative relationship may exist between more ideal forms of leadership (e.g., authentic and transformational) and workplace deviance. In addition, the collective identity inspired by the leader may serve as a buffer against workplace dev iance, where the employee may choose not to engage in workplace
38 In line with these arguments the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 10 : Leadership style has an indirect effect on workpl ace deviance that is mediated by collective identity Table 1 Summary of proposed hypotheses Hypothesis 1: A measure of authentic leadership will be distinguishable from measures of transformational and transactional leadership when factor an alyzed. Hypothesis 2: impression, and (b) this relationship is stronger than the one between transformational leadership and general leader impression Hypothesis 3: (a) Authen leadership, and (b) this relationship is stronger than the one between transformational leadership and employee satisfaction with leadership Hypothesis 4: (a) Authentic leadership is po supervisor commitment, and (b) this relationship is stronger than the one between transformational leadership and affective supervisor commitment. Hy pothesis 5: Authentic leadership is positively related to followe Hypothesis 6: leadership, and (b) this relationship is stronger than the one between transformational leadership and employee trust in leadership. Hypothes is 7 : psychological capital. Hypothesis 8 : Leadership style has an indirect effect on task performance that is mediated itive psychological capital Hypothesis 9 : Leadership style has an indirect effect on OCB that is mediated by Hypothesis 10 : Leadership style has an indirect effect on workplace deviance th at is
39 Overview of the Present Study Hypotheses were examined usi ng a variety of methods. First, a measure for authentic leadership was developed through a comprehensive literature review and exploratory factor analyses. This measure was then confirmed on a separate pilot sample using confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) Additional CFAs were conducted to examine the discriminant validity of the new measure, which served as a test for Hypothesis 1. The remaining h ypotheses were examined using structural equation modeling (SEM). For H2 through H7, a model containing direct relationships between leadership and follower perception and motivation variables was compared against commonly accepted fit criteria ( Carmines & McIver, 1981; Bentler & Bonnett, 1980; Bentler, 1990; Browne & Cudeck, 1993). For the remaining hypotheses, a full hypothesized model was compared to alternative models that included an additional direct path between leadership and one of the follower beh avior variables. For H8, a direct path was added between leadership and employee task performance, for H9, between leadership and organizational citizenship behavior, and for H10, between leadership and workplace deviance. The rigorous approach through whi ch this study was conducted allowed the researcher to address
40 Chapter Two Method Sample Three different samples were used in the current study. The first two sample s were used for pilot testing, and demographic information for these samples is reported in later sections. Information for the primary study is reported here. In order to obtain a representative sample, participants were recruited from both corporate and academic settings. Local businesses were asked to participate, along with students from the psychology department at the University of South Florida. To qualify for the study, it was required that participants worked at least part time (defined as 20 hours per week) and had been with their current supervisor for a minimum of three months. The sample for the primary study was composed of supervisor subordinate pairs ( N = 132). Participants worked in a variety of industries, including education (20.5%), trans portation (15.2%), retail (12.9%), financial (6.8%), public or government service (6.8%), hotel or restaurant service (6.1%), manufacturing (6.1%), medical (4.5%), and others (21.2%). The average age for subordinates was 28.7 years ( SD = 11.5) and 43.8 ye ars ( SD = 11.7) for supervisors. Both subordinates and supervisors were mostly female (64% and 52%, respectively). Procedure Participants completed the study through online surveys. Prior to completing the survey, subordinates were asked to provide a vali d email address for their supervisor.
41 Upon successful completion, supervisors were sent a link to a separate online survey. Each supervisor subordinate pair was given a unique code in order to preserve their anonymity while enabling the researcher to track their scores. Students in the psychology department were tracked using the SONA system and given extra credit for their participation. Measures The information provided below is for all measures used in both pilot studies as well as the primary study. Additional information regarding the items used in pilot studies is presented in later sections as is the reliability data for each scale Authentic leadership. As mentioned in the introductory chapter there was no validated scale for authentic leade rs hip in existence at the time of this study. Therefore, a n authentic leadership scale was developed and pilot test ed Based on the r esults of pilot testing (see following section) I created a 2 0 item authentic leadership scale that consisted of two dimensi ons: regulatory authenticity ( 13 items; ) and relational authenticity (7 items; ). Participants were asked to rate the frequency of these behaviors on a five point Likert scale, ranging from 0 ( not at all ) to 4 ( frequently, if not always ). Transformational leadership. Transformati onal leadership was assessed using items from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X), developed by Bass (1985). The MLQ is the primary quantitative instrument used to measure the transformational leadership construct. It has appeared in over 75 research studies, with samples varying by industry sector and organizational level (Lowe, Kroeck, &
42 Sivasubramaniam, 1996). The scales for transformational leadership include d four items each for five dimension s: idealized influence attributed, idealized influence behavior, individualized consideration, inspirational motivation, and intellectual stimulation (see Appendix B). Participants were asked to rate the frequency of these behaviors on a five point Likert scale, ranging from 0 ( not at all ) to 4 ( f requently, if not always ). Transactional leadership. Transactional leadership was also assessed using items from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X), developed by Bass (1985). The scales for transactional leadership included four items each for three dimensions: contingent reward, management by exception active, and management by exception passive (see Appendix C ). Participants were asked to rate the frequency of these behaviors on a five point Likert scale, ranging from 0 ( not at all ) t o 4 ( frequently, if not always ). General leader impression. The degree to which the ratee was seen as a leader was measured using the General Leader Impression scale (GLI; Cronshaw & Lord, 1987). This five item scale asked participants (followers) to ind icate (1) the amount of leadership exhibited by the supervisor, (2) how willing the follower is to choose the supervisor as a leader, (3) how typical the supervisor is as a leader, (4) the degree that the supervisor engages in leader behavior, and (5) the degree that the supervisor fits the (see Appendix D ) Cronshaw and Lord (1987) examined th e for this scale. In the cu rrent study, participants w e re asked to rate their supervisors using a seven point scale from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ).
43 Satisfaction with the leader. sfaction with the leader was measured using a two item scale from the MLQ 5X (B ass, 1985). Participants were the rated on a five point Likert scale ranging from 0 ( not at all ) to 4 ( frequently, if not always ). Affective supervisor commitment. Affectiv e supervisor commitment was measured using eight items from Allen Commitment scale. The wording o f the items for this scale was changed to reflect a rating for the supervisor rest of my career wi the r samples) for affective commitment to the supervisor. Th e items for this scale are listed in Appendix E Participants were asked to rate their supervisor using a seven point scale from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ). Collective identity. Collective identity was assessed using a modified version of the scale created by Conger, Ka more relevant to the current study, items were re worded to reflect collective identity between the leader and the follower, rather tha n the follower and the workgroup. For elves in the workg reworded items are included in
44 Appendix F Participants rate d the leader on a seven point scale from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ). T rust in the leader. l of trust in the leader was assessed using The scale consisted age by te faith in the integrity of my mana ger / sup th e leader on a seven point scale ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ) Positive psychological capital. As described above, positive psychological capital is a composite construct that encompasses the measurable, developable, and manageable components of positive organizational behavior (Luthans et al., 2007). Specifically, this construct is comprised of hope, resilience, optimism, and self efficacy (confidence). Luthans, Avolio, Avey, and Norman (2 007) recently developed and validated a scale for this construct and labeled it the PsyCap Questionnaire (PCQ). Using four separate .89) and good internal consistenc .89). Furthermore, they found a positive significant relationship between the composite PsyCap measure and both job satisfaction ( r = .35, p < .05) and job performance ( r = .24, p < .05). The 24 item PsyCap question naire asks participants to rate their self efficacy, hope, resilience, and optimism using a seven point Likert scale from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ). In the current study, these ite ms were combined to form a
45 composite PsyCap measure, as th is has been argued as a better predictor than the four individual facets (Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007). The entire set of items is included in Appendix G Task performance. Follower performanc e was assessed using Becker and role performance, which is based on a scale originally developed by Williams and Anderson (1991). This seven item measure was completed by l items are listed in Appendix H ). Becker and Kernan reported alphas of .92 and .85 for this scale, respectively, using samples of MBA students and undergraduates. Sup ervisors were asked to rate their subordinates on a seven point scale ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ). Organizational citizenship behavior. Organizational c itizenship behavior (OCB) was assessed using a scale from Po dsakoff et al. (1990). This 24 item scale (five items for conscientiousness, five i tems for sportsmanship, four items for civic virtue, five items for courtesy, and five items for altruism) was completed by the supervisor. Example altruism (see App endix I ). Podsakoff et al. found good internal consistencies for consc
46 Supervisors were asked to rate their subordinates on a seven point scale ranging from 1 ( strongl y disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ). Workplace deviance. Deviant behavior at work was assessed using Bennett and Deviant Workplace Behaviors 1). This 19 item, self report scale asks participants to rate the frequency of t heir behavior on a seven point scale from 1 ( never ) to 7 ( daily t work in order to get ).
47 Chapter Three Pilot Testing Pilot Study 1 In order to examine how leaders demonstrate authentic leadership, behavioral items were generated based on an extensive review of the literature. This re view resulted in five theoretical dimensions (positive moral perspective, self awareness, balanced processing, relational transparency, and authentic behavior), as described in the introduction. Ten items were created for each dimension, for a total pool o f 50 items (see Appendix A). These items were administered to a sample of undergraduate students ( N = 311) from a large university in the Southeast US. The average age of participants was 21.8 years ( SD = 3.5), they were primarily female (68%), they worked an average of 28.8 hours per week ( SD = 7.6), and had an average relationship tenure with their current supervisor of 22.1 months ( SD = 20.6). Participants rated the frequency of behavior shown by their supervisor on a scale from 0 ( n ot at all ) to 4 ( f req uently, if not always ). E xploratory factor analyses (EFA) using maximum likelihood (ML) estimation were conducted to examine the factor structure of the data. The goal of EFA is to arrive at a more parsimonious representation of the measured variables in a data set (e.g., Thurstone, 1947). For pilot 1, five theoretic al dimensions were proposed. First, separate EFAs were conducted on the items belonging to each theoretical dimension in the data set
48 factor with the greatest number of high loading items was retained, and items loading onto all other factors within the dimension were eliminated. This allowed the researcher to establish a common factor for each theoretical di mension, and eliminate items that did not load highly onto that factor (Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999). This resulted in the elimination of 19 items: 4 positive moral perspective items, 7 self awareness items, 2 balanced processing items, 3 authentic behavior items, and 3 relational transparency items. Thus, 31 items were retained for further analysis. An EFA was then performed on the entire set of 31 items. Using ML estimation and a combination of the Kaiser rule (i.e., retain factors with eigenvalues > 1) and scree test, it was determined that four factors should be retained. These factors accounted for 61.6% of the variance in the data. The factors were rotated using a direct oblimin rotation, as it was assumed that they would be correlat ed. Additionally, 5 cross loading items (defined as having loadings within .10 on multiple factors) and 1 item with low loadings (loadings < .40) were eliminated from the factor loading matrix, as recommended by Thurstone (1947). After removing the aforeme ntioned items, Factor 1 had 13 items: 6 positive moral perspective items, 2 balanced processing items, 3 self awareness items, and 2 authentic behavior items; and Factor 2 had 7 relational transparency items. Factor 3 had no items; and Factor 4 had 5 items : 3 authentic behavior items and 2 balanced processing items. Factor 3 was not considered further as no items factors underlying the measures (Fabrigar et al., 1999) Fa ctor 4 was not considered further, as a similar number of authentic behavior and balanced processing items were
49 retained in Factor 1. The remaining two factors accounted for 51.7% of the total variance in the set of items. The first factor contained high l oadings for the theoretical dimensions of positive moral perspective, self awareness, balanced processing, and authentic behavior, while the second factor contained high loadings for the dimension of relational transparency. These findings are aligned wit authenticity. In describing four theoretical dimensions of authenticity, the author states related to, but separable from, fourth, relational component of authenticity. Indeed, results of the current EFA support the notion that the elements of positive moral perspective, self awareness, balanced processing, and authen tic behavior, although each theoretically distinct, are empirically related to each other, while the relational component of authenticity remains a separate authentici ty, these two factors were labeled regulative authenticity and relational authenticity regulated by their positive morals and deep sense of self, and relational in the sense that the le ader seeks openness and truthfulness in close relationships. Results of item analysis provided further support for both factors, with an alph a reliability coefficient of .93 for the regul ative authenticity items and .93 for the relational authentici ty item s. Thus, a two factor, 20 item scale for authentic leadership (o
50 EFA. The generalizability of this two factor solution was next evaluated in a second pilot study using co nfirmatory factor analysis Pilot Study 2 Before testing the proposed model, it was necessary to further examine the discriminant validity of the authentic leadership measure ( Cooper et al., 2005) Therefore, a second pilot study was conducted This study had two objectives: to verify the factor structure of authentic leadership that emerged in the first pilot study and to examine the separateness of authentic, transformational, and transactional leadership (i.e., which served as a test of Hypothesis 1). Participants ( N = 285 ) for this study were employed undergraduates from a large university in the Southeast US. The average age of participants was 22.3 years ( SD = 3.7), they were mostly female (66%), they worked an average of 30.2 hours per week ( SD = 7.8), and had an average relationship tenure with their current supervisor of 20.8 months ( SD = 21.6). Each partic ipant rate d the original 50 item authentic leadership scale, a 20 item transformational leadership scale (MLQ 5X; Bass, 1985), a 12 item transactional leadership scale (MLQ 5X; Bass, 1985) and 24 items from Gar management scale (see Table 2 for correlations and scale reliabilities). All measures used a Likert type rating scale from 0 ( Not at all ) to 4 ( Frequently, if not always ). First, a CFA was conducted in order to verify the factor structure of the initial data set. Data were analyzed using AMOS ver sion 17.0 (Arbuckle, 2008). The measurement model and item loadings for the 2 factor model are presented in Figure 2
51 Table 2 Correlations and scale reliabilities fo r pilot 2 study variables Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Authentic Leadership (.94) 2. Transformational Leadership .87** (.96) 3. Transactional Leadership .00 .16** (.47) 4. Self Promotion .35** .22** .42** (.90) 5. In timidation .57 ** .47** .30** .54** (.82) 6. Ingratiation .70** .66** .13** .07 .26** (.80) ** p < .01 The fit statistics for this model were as follows: 2 = 501.26, normed 2 = 2.97, CFI = .91, TLI = .89, RMSEA = .08. Although the model had a significant 2 this statistic is highly sensitive to sample size (e.g., Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993) and it had an acceptable normed 2 value (i.e., values less than 3 are desirable; Carmines & McIver, 1981). Fit indices that compare the model to a baseline independence model, such as CFI and TLI, also indicate adequate fit to the data (i.e., values close to 1.00 indicate very good fit; Bentler & Bonnett, 1980; Bentler, 1990). Finally, according to Browne and Cudeck (1993), model RMSEA should be less than .10 in order to be minimally acceptable. The model was acceptable according to this criterion. Based on these statistics, the 2 factor, 20 item model from the first pilo t study had acceptable fit. Thus, the two factor 20 item measure of authentic leadership that was arrived at through exploratory analyses in the first pilot was confirmed on a separate sample using CFA. In order to further examine the discriminant validit y of the new authentic leadership measure, additional CFAs were conducted. Measures for authentic, transactional, and transformational leadership were compared. According to Hypothesis 1, these measures were each thought to have unique factor structures. T o test this, the fit
52 of an initial 3 factor model (see Figure 3 for model and standardized estimates) was compared against that of five separate alternative models (see Figures 4 8). The first alternative model (Model 2) was set up similarly to the initial model, but with contingent reward serving as an indicator of transformational leadership instead of transactional leadership, as this is often found when these leadership styles are factor analyzed. Models 3, 4, and 5 were each variations of possible 2 fa ctor models, with Model 3 having an authentic factor and a combination transactional transformational factor, Model 4 having transactional and a combination authentic transformational factor, and Model 5 having a transformational and a combination authenti c transactional factor. The final model (Model 6) had a single leadership factor with all indicators loading onto the factor. Thus, if the initial hypothesized model, or the alternative hypothesized model (Model 2) had better fit than each of the comparati ve models, this would provide support for Hypothesis 1. To reduce the number of observed variables in the models, item parcels and subscale scores were used as indicators for each factor. The initial 3 factor model (Model 1) contained 3 subscale indicator s for transactional leadership (i.e., average scores for contingent reward, management by exception active, and management by exception passive), 5 subscale indicators for transformational leadership (i.e., average scores for individual consideration, idea lized influence attributed, idealized influence behavioral, inspirational motivation, and intellectual stimulation), and 4 item parcel indicators for authentic leadership (i.e., 2 item parcels each for regulatory authenticity and relational
53 Figure 2 Mode l and standardized estimates for measure of authentic leadership. Note s PMP = positive moral perspective; SA = self awareness; BP = balanced processing; AB = authentic behavior; RT = relational transparency
54 Figure 3 Model a nd standardized estimates for Hypothesis 1. Note s RegA A = regulatory authenticity A scale; RegA B = regulatory authenticity B scale; RelA A = relational authenticity A scale; RelA B = relational authenticity B scale; CR = contingent reward; MBE A = management by exception active; MBE P = management by exception passive; IC = individual consideration; II A = idealized influence attributed; II B = idealized influence behavioral; IM = inspirational motivation; IS = intellectual stimulation Authentic Leadership Transactional Leadership Transformational Leadership .99 .99 .97 RegA A RegA B RelA A RelA B CR MBE A MBE P IC II A II B IM IS e2 e1 e3 e4 e5 e6 e7 e8 e9 e10 e11 e12 .78 .82 .88 .85 .14 .54 .86 .85 .94 .90 .85 .89 .69 .47 Chi square = 152.38 (49 df ) p = .00 Normed chi sq uare = 3.11 CFI = .97 TLI = .95 RMSEA = .09
55 Figure 4 Model and standardized estimates for contingent reward alternative loading model (Model 2) Authentic Leadership Transactional Leadership Transformational Leadership .70 .87 .97 RegA A RegA B RelA A RelA B CR MBE A MBE P IC II A II B IM IS e2 e1 e3 e4 e5 e6 e7 e8 e9 e10 e11 e12 .78 .83 .87 .85 .31 .67 .86 .85 .94 .90 .85 .89 Chi square = 126.81 p = .00 Normed chi square = 2.59 CFI = .98 RMSEA = .08 .68 .48 TLI = .96
56 Figure 5 Model and standardized estimates for transactional transformational model (Mo del 3). Authentic Leadership Transactional Transformational Leadership .98 RegA A RegA B RelA A RelA B MBE A MBE P IC II A II B IM IS e2 e1 e3 e4 e5 e6 e8 e9 e10 e11 e12 .78 .82 .88 .85 .00 .52 CR e7 .89 .85 .94 .86 .90 .85 Chi square = 160.04 (51 df) p = .00 Normed chi square = 3.14 CFI = .97 TLI = .95 RMS EA = .09 .69 .47
57 Figure 6 Model and standardized estimates for a uthentic transformational model (Model 4). Transactional Leadership Authentic Transformational Leadership .57 RegA A RegA B RelA A RelA B CR MBE A MBE P IC II A II B IM IS e2 e1 e3 e4 e5 e6 e7 e8 e9 e10 e11 e12 .22 .93 .85 .85 .94 .90 .85 .77 .81 .86 .83 .89 Chi square = 151.55 (51 df) p = .00 Normed chi square = 2.97 CFI = .97 TLI = .95 RMSEA = .08 .70 .53
58 Figure 7 Model and standardized estimates for authentic transactional model (Mo del 5). Authentic Transactional Leadership Transformational Leadership .95 RegA A RegA B RelA A RelA B CR MBE A MBE P IC II A II B IM IS e2 e1 e3 e4 e5 e6 e7 e8 e9 e10 e11 e12 .78 .83 .89 .86 .86 .85 .94 .90 .85 89 .18 .56 Chi square = 143.40 (51 df) p = .00 Normed chi square = 2.81 CFI = .97 TLI = .96 RMSEA = .08 .43 .68
59 Figure 8 Model and standardized estimates for leadership factor model (Model 6). Leadership RegA A RegA B RelA A RelA B CR MBE A MBE P IC II A II B IM IS e2 e1 e3 e4 e5 e6 e7 e8 e9 e10 e11 e12 .13 .53 .89 .77 .81 .86 .83 .85 .94 .85 .90 .85 .70 .53 Chi square = 159.21 (52 df) p = .00 Normed chi square = 3.06 C FI = .97 TLI = .95 RMSEA = .09
60 authenticity). For the latter, EFA results were used to create indicators by rank ordering the 7 relational authenticity and 13 regulatory authenticity items by loading size, and splitting these into two groups (highest loading into group A, second highest into group B, third highest into group A, fourth into group B, etc.). This produced 2 indi cators that contained the highest loading items for relational and regulatory authenticity. These subs cales and item parcels were used in the alternative hypothesized model as well as each of the comparative models. In initial analyses, none of the models reached the acceptable levels of fit outlined by Browne and Cudeck (1993). In examining the modification indices, it was determined that correlating the error variables for the regulatory and relational authenticity item parcels would result in incrementa l fit for each model. This makes sense theoretically, as the item parcels are alternative forms of the same vari able, and therefore their error variables should be expected to covary (see Arbuckle, 2008 pp. 106 107) A dding this constraint resulted in more acceptable levels of fit for all 6 models. Additionally, contingent reward produced greater model fit when serving as an indicator of transformational leadership instead of transactional leadership, and was therefore used as an indicator of transformation al leadership for Models 2 6. Fit statistics for each model are shown in Table 3. As can be seen, Model 2 ( 2 (49) = 126.81 normed 2 = 2.59, CFI = .98, TLI = .96, RMSEA = .08 ) appeared to have slightly better fit than any of the alternative models ( 2 (49 51) = 143. 4 0 160.04 normed 2 = 2.81 3.14 CFI = .97 .98, TLI = .95 .96 RMSEA = .08 .09 ). This provides s upport for the idea that authentic, transactional, and transformational leadership are
61 Table 3 Fit statistics for pilot 2 hypothesized and alternative models. Model 2 df 2 /df CF I TL I RMSEA H1 Model 152.38 49 3.11 .97 .95 .09 Model 2 126.81 49 2.59 .98 .96 .08 Model 3 160.04 51 3.14 .97 .95 .09 Model 4 151.55 51 2.97 .97 .95 .08 Model 5 143.40 51 2.81 .97 .96 .08 Model 6 159.21 52 3.06 .97 .96 .09 distinguishable factors, at least when contingent reward is treated as an indicator of transformational leadership. However, a closer examination of the factor correlations in this model reveals that, while both authentic and transformational leadership are relatively distinguishable from transactional leadersh ip ( R = .87 and .70, respectively), the authentic and transformational leadership factors are not distinguishable ( R = .97 ). Given these conflicting results, it was necessary to conduct further exploratory analyses to gain a better understanding of the relationship between authentic and transformational leadership. Therefore, I compared the relationship between these two leadership styles and three dimensions of leader impression management: self promotion, intimidation, and ingratiation (Gardner & Cl eavenger, 1998). As defined by Jones and Pittman (1982), self promotion is behavior that presents the actor as highly competent with regards to certain skills and abilities, intimidation is behavior that presents the actor as a dangerous person who is able and willing to inflict pain on the audience, and ingratiation is behavior that makes the actor appear more attractive and likeable to others. Recall that Bass and Steidlemeier (1999) argued that transformational leadership can take two forms those who g enuinely care for the well being of their followers and the
62 organization at large (i.e., authentic transformational leaders), and those who give the outward appearance of caring for their followers and the organization, while their true motivation is perso nal gain (i.e., pseudo transformational leaders). Also recall that by definitio n, are concerned about their subordinates, while transformational leaders can choose to be more concerned about subordinates or more concerned about themselves. If transformational leaders are indeed more concerned about themselves, it follows that they w ould more likely modify their behavior in order to elicit favorable impressions from others. Thus, leader impression management is an area where authentic and transformational leadership may diverge. Specifically, transformational leaders may engage in gre ater self promotion, intimidation, and ingratiation in order to advance their own self interests (e.g., Snyder, 1987), possibly at the expense of the follower (e.g., Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). Thus, I examined whether transformational leadership had strong er relationships with impression management than authentic leadership. To test the relationships between these two forms of leadership and impression management, 2 models were compared for each of the 3 forms of impression management ( see Appendix K for m odels and standardized estimates) In the first model, the parameters f or the relationships between both leadership variables and the impression management variable were freely estimated In the second model, these parameters were constrained to be equal. As in the previous analyses, item parcels and subscale scores were used as indicators in order to limit the number of observed variables, and the error
63 variables for the regulatory and r elational authenticity item parcels were correlated. I f the model fit for the freely estimated model s was better than the fit for the equal constraint version s this would provide support for the idea that these two forms of leadership we re not equally related to the impression management variable in question. Fit statistic s for the freely estimated and equal constraint models are shown in Table 4 As can be seen, the freely estimated models for self promotion, intimidation, and ingratiation ( 2 = 202.72, 212.50, and 428.32 respectively) had significantly better fit than the alternative equal constraint models ( 2 = 242.86, 243.42, and 431.48 respectively). This provides general support for the idea that authentic and transformational leaders hip are not equally related to impression management. However, the heavy overlap between the authentic and transformational leadership factors ( R = .96 .97) precludes any determination that these two variables are themselves distinguishable. Thus, it se ems that although authentic and transformational leadership may function differently when compared with other variables, they are not statistically distinguishable when compared to one another. Table 4 Fit statistics for impression management comparison m odels. Model 2 df 2 /df CF I TL I RMSEA Self promotion, freely estimated 202.72 72 2.82 .97 .96 .08 Self promotion, equal constraint 242.86 73 3.33 .95 .94 .09 Intimidation, f reely estimated 212.50 72 2.95 .96 .95 .08 Intimidation, equal constraint 243.42 73 3.33 .95 .94 .09 Ingratiation, freely estimated 428.32 130 3.30 .92 .91 .09 Ingratiation, equal constraint 431.48 131 3.29 .92 .91 .09 Note. All 2 between freely estimated and equal constraint models were significant at the .01 level.
64 To summarize findings from the second pilot provide additional information regarding the relationship between authentic leadership and similar leadership styles First, the authentic leadership scale that was arrived at through exploratory analyses in the first pilot was further validated through confirmatory factor analyses using a separate sample Second, authentic and transformational leadership were found to be distinguishable from transactional leadership when contingent reward wa s treated as an indicator of transformational leaders hip. Third authentic and transformational leadership were differentially related to the self promotion, intimidation, and ingrat iation dimensions of impression management. However, when authentic and transformational leadership were directly compared, these two forms of leadership were n ot easily teased apart Although t hese findings support the idea that authentic leadership has b oth similar and distinct component s when compared with other popular leadership forms (e.g., Avolio & Gardner, 2005) given the heavy overlap between these two constructs the general conclusion that can be reached is that authentic and transformation lead er ship are not statistically distinguishable
65 Results As a general warning against getting caught up in the popularity of the authentic strategies for authentic lead ership development, scholars in this area need to give careful consideration to four critical issues: (1) defining and measuring the construct, (2) determining the discriminant validity of the construct, (3) identifying relevant construct outcomes (i.e., t measure of authentic leadership was developed in the first phase of this project. Through pilot te sting, the initial measure was refined and validated. Additionally, pilot tests have begun to shed light on the issue of convergent and discriminant validity between have been addressed both theoretically and empirically. The primary study looked to address the third. That is, the primary purpose of this study was to examine the nomological network of authentic leadership. To complete the study, s ubordinates were aske d to rate their supervisor or their relationship with their supervisor, on authentic leadership, transformational leadership, general leader impression, satisfaction with the leader, affective supervisor commitment, collective identity, and trust in the l eader, and to rate themselves on positive psychological capital and workplace deviance. Supervisors were asked to rate the
66 Table 5 Correlations and scale reliabilities for primary study variables Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. ATL (.97 ) 2. GLI .90 (.92 ) 3. Sat. .85 .73 (.88 ) 4. ASC .82 .86 .70 (.88 ) 5. CI .77 .75 .65 .74 (.86 ) 6. Trust .86 .88 .74 .76 .82 (.87 ) 7. PsyCap .58 .49 .53 .52 .49 .53 (.92) 8. ETP .40 .27 .26 .40 .32 .26 .30 (.88) 9. OCB .35 .25 .30 .31 .32 .24 .30 .92 (.94) 10. WD .32 .22 .30 .23 .28 .25 .46 .13 .07 (.91) Note. p < .01 for all relationships except those italicized. ATL = authentic transformational leadership; GLI = general leader impression; Sat. = satisfaction with leadership; ASC = affective supervisor commitment; CI = collective identity; Trust = trust in leadership; PsyCap = positive psychological capital; ETP = employee task performance; OCB = organizational c itizenship behavior; WD = workplace deviance. for correlations and scale reliabilities for all study variables ; see figures 9 and 10 for measurement models f or subordinate and supervisor rated variables, respectively). As a result of pilot testing, it did not appear that authentic and transformational leadership were empirically distinct constructs. Therefore, direct comparisons of authentic versus transformational leadersh ip were not conducted in the primary study. Rather, the proposed model was tested using a combined authentic transformational leadership variable. This was a single latent variable with a total of 9 indicators: the 5 subscales of transformational leadershi p (i.e., average scores for individual consideration, idealized influence attributed, idealized influence behavioral, inspirational motivation, and intellectual stimulation) and the 4 item parcels for authentic leadership (2 regulatory, 2 relational authen
67 Figure 9 Measurement model for subordinate rated variables.
68 Figure 10 Measurement model for supervisor rated variables.
69 transf ormational leadership is itself morally neutral, and that transformational leaders can fall into one of two categories, authentic and pseudo transformational. Furthermore, they d others, it is characterized The authentic transformational leadership factor in the primary study is a combination of the five dimensions of transformational leadership, as well as regulatory and relational authenticity behaviors and the manifestation of these thoughts and behaviors through interactions with others. Thus, this factor can be seen as representing Bass proposed hypotheses were not directly tested, using the latent authentic transformational leadership variable still allowed the researcher to examine the indirect effects of authentic leadership (i.e., when combined with transformational leadership), as well as the been proposed, but not empirically examined, in past resea rch (e.g., Aristotle, 1985; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Price, 2003). B ecause direct comparisons were not made between authentic and t ransformational leadership, Hypotheses 2 7 were not directly testable. Instead, part (b) for H2, 3, 4, and 6 was removed from consideration, and part (a) was tested using the modified authentic transformational leadership variable. Thus, a direct path was drawn from authentic transformational leadership to each of the following endogenous variables: general leader impression satisfaction with leadership, affective supervisor
70 commitment, collective identity, trust in leadership, and positive psychological capital. Hypotheses 8, 9, and 10 were still testable, with authentic transformational leadership functioning as the leader ship style in the model. For H8, paths were drawn from (a) affective supervisor commitment, (b) trust in the leader, and (c) positive psychological capital to a latent employee task performance variable. For H9, paths were drawn from (a) collective identit y and (b) trust in the leader to a latent organizational citizenship behavior variable. Finally, for H10, a path was drawn from collec tive identity to a latent workplace deviance variable. T o simplify the model s adjustments were made to reduce the numbe r of observed variables. As in previous analyses, transformational leadership subscales and authentic leadership item parcels were used as indicators for the exogenous authentic transformational variable. For the endogenous variables, subscale averages wer e used as indicators for positive psychological capital and organizational citizenship behavior. Item parcels were also created for variables with greater than five indicators, but no subscales (e.g., affective supervisor commitment, employee task performa nce, workplace deviance). Specifically, three item parcels were created as indicators for affective supervisor commitment and employee task performance, as this is the necessary number of parcels in order to ensure that the model is identified ( Kline, 2004 ). Because workplace deviance had 19 items, 4 item parcels were created as indicators for this variable. All item parcels were populated by conducting a CFA, and then placing items into parcels based on the item loadings for the first factor that emerged ( i.e., highest factor loading into parcel 1, second highest into parcel 2, third highest into parcel 3,
71 fourth highest back into parcel 1, etc.). The average score for each item parcel was used as an indicator for the respective variable. For general leader impression, satisfaction with the leader, collective identity, and trust in the leader, individual items were used as indicators. As was the case in p ilot 2, an initial examination of the model indicated that the levels of fit were below the acceptable l evels outlined by Browne and Cudeck (1993). Modification indices suggested that the error variables for regulatory and relational authenticity should be correlated, as in the pilot analyses. The modification indices also suggested that the error variables for employee task performance and organizational citizenship behavior should be correlated to produce better fit This makes sense theoretically, as these two variables are both indicators of effective job performance. Furthermore, these were the only two variables that were reported on by the supervisor, and therefore, the relationship between the two could be due to common method variance. As a result this initial examination, these three modifications were made to the model. T o test t he modified Hypothe ses 2 7, a model was examined with the distal outcomes of task performance, OCB, and workplace deviance excluded (see Figure 11) As all 6 of these hypotheses involved direct relationships between the exogenous and endogenous variables, competing models were not appropriate for the model. Rather, fit statistics were examined in absolute terms against commonly accepted fit criteria (i.e., normed 2 < 3, CFI and TLI values close to 1, RMSEA < .1; Carmines & McIver, 1981; Bentler & Bonnett, 1980; Bentler, 1990; Browne & Cudeck, 1993). Thus, if the model
72 had good fit to the data, this would provide support for H2 H7. As can be seen in Figure 11, the model met the acceptable criteria for fit (normed 2 = 1. 76 CFI = .92, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .08). Thus, modified Hypotheses 2 7 were fully supported by the data. To test Hypotheses 8 10, the fit of the full hypothesized model (see Figure 12) was compar ed against that of multiple alternative models. For each hypothesis, the Figure 11 Model for modified Hypotheses 2 7.
73 hypothesized model was compared to an alternative model that included a direct path from authentic trans formational leadership to the respective behavioral outcome variable. For H8, the alternative model included a direct path to employee task performance (see Figure 13 ) For H9 a direct path was included to OCB (see Figure 14 ) F or H10, a direct path was i ncluded to workplace deviance (see Figure 15 ). The change in model fit (via 2 ) was examined for each model comparison. If the inclusion of the direct path did not result in significantly improved fit over the hypothesized model, this would provi de support for the hypothesis in question. Fit statistics for the hypothesized model and each of the alternative models are provided in Table 6 As can be seen, the hypothesized model had acceptable fit statistics overall, with normed 2 = 1.64 CFI = .90 TLI = .89 and RMSEA = .07 Additionally, this model accounted for 15 % of variance in employee task performance, 9 % of the variance in organizational citizenship behavior and 9 % of the variance in workplace deviance For H8, the alternative model did no t have significantly better fit to the data than the hypothesized model 2 (1) = .83 ns ). Therefore, the relationshi p between leadership style and employee task performance was fully mediated by follower motivation. To identify which specific motivation variables functioned as mediators, it was necessary to examine the signi ficance of each predictor mediator and mediator outcome relationship s According to Baron and Kenny (1986), mediation requires a significant relationship between both the predictor and the mediator and between the mediator and the outcome variable. Althoug h there was a significant relationship between
74 Figure 12 Hypothesized model for primary study with authentic transformational leadership variable. Note: Straight line = relationship is significant at p < .05. Dashed line = relationship is not significant at p < .05.
75 Figure 13 Alternative model for Hypothesis 8. Note: Straight line = relationship is significant at p < .05. Dashed line = relationship is not significant at p < .05.
76 Figure 14 Alternative model for Hypothesis 9. Note : Straight line = relationship is significant at p < .05. Dashed line = relationship is not significant at p < .05.
77 Figure 15 Alternative model for Hypothesis 10. Note: Straight line = relationship is significant at p < .05. Dashed line = relationship is not significant at p < .05.
78 Table 6 Fit statistics for Hypotheses 8 10 Model 2 df 2 /df CF I TL I RM SEA 2 Hypothesized Model 1386.80 845 1.64 90 .89 .07 -H8 Alternative Model 1385.97 844 1.64 .9 0 .89 .0 7 83 H9 Alternative Model 1378.87 844 1.63 .9 0 .89 .07 7.93 H10 Alternative Model 1384.47 844 1.64 .9 0 .89 07 2.33 p < .05 authentic transformational leadership and all three follower motivation variables (affective supervisor commitment, trust in the leader, positive psychological capital), only affective supervisor commitment had a significant relationship ( = .21, p < .05) with employee task performance. Therefore, affective supervisor commitment fully mediated the relationship between leadership and employee task performance, while trust and positive psychological capital did not. Thus, H8 was partially su pported by the data. For H9, the alternative model had significantly better fit than the hypothesized 2 (1) = 7.93 p < .05). Additionally, this model accounted for a greater percentage of variance for the outcome variables, with 18% of the varia nce in employee task performance, 14% of the variance in organizational citizenship behavior, and 9% of the variance in workplace deviance accounted for in the model. Furthermore, both collective identity ( = 17 ns ) and trust in the leader ( = .1 5 ns ) had non significant relationships with the outcome variable, OCB. Therefore, the relationship between leadershi p style and OCB was not mediated by collective identity and trust in the leader Thus, Hypothesis 9 was not supported. Finally, for H10, the alternative model did not have significantly better fit to the 2 (1) = 2.33 ns ). Furthermore, significant relationships existed between leadership and collective identity as well as between
79 collective identity and workpl ace deviance ( = .30, p < .05). Therefore, the relationship between leadership style and workplace deviance was fully mediated by collective identity. This provided full support for Hypothesis 10.
80 Discussion The concept of authentic leadership has been given a fair amount of attention in both academic and corporate circles throughout the last decade. However, empirical examination of this concept is lacking. The current study looked to close this gap through the development of an authentic leadershi p measure and a glimpse into the nomological network of this new construct. A new measure for authentic leadership was developed and validated through pilot testing. Through additional analyses using this new measure, it was discovered that authentic and t ransformational leadership were not empirically distinct However, by combining the se two measures into an authentic transformational leadership construct it was still possible to examine the effect of greater amounts of authenticity in the leadership rol e. It was found that authentic transformational leadership was directly related to a number of employee attitudes and these in turn were related to employee behaviors. The re are both theoretical implications and practical applications for these findings Theoretical Implications Authentic transformational leadership as a construct. First, and perhaps most importantly, findings from the study provide empirical evidence for the convergent versus discriminant validity debate between authentic and transform ational leadership. Also r e
81 warnings against getting too caught up in the popularity of a uthentic leadership, as well as their counsel to ensure the separateness of this construct prior to promoting its development. the critical test is not whether research can distinguish the authentic leadership construct in a theoretical discussion, but whether this construct can be distinguished from other similar constructs empirically, using commonly accepted psychometric method (p. 481). Considering the extremely high level of overlap between authentic and transformational leadership found using commonly accepted psychometric methods (e.g., EFA, CFA, SEM) in the current study, it would se em that further promotion of authentic leadership development ( ALD; Avolio & Gardner, 2005) is premature at best, but more likely unnecessary. Thus, based on these findings, it is suggested that a moratorium be placed on authentic leadership development un til this construct has been examined in additional studies with similar rigor. For now, the theoretical components of authentic leadership have resulted in positive results when added to transformational leadership. Perhaps this is the best value that the concept of authentic leadership will bring to the field of leadership research A lthough no measure was in existence when my research began, a recent article by Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, and Peterson (2008) includes the development and validati on of an authentic leadership measure. The authors used the same conceptualizations of the authentic leadership construct (e.g., Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner, et al., 2005; Ilies, et al., 2005) as in the current study and initially viewed the construct as having the same five dimensions : positive moral perspective, self
82 awareness, balanced processing, relational transparency, and authentic behavior (p. 95). Methods for item generation were also similar, as the authors used an extensive review of the lit erature and dissertations to generate items. However, m ethods for the initial validation of the scale were different in that, rather than conducting an Exploratory Factor Analysis to infer dimensionality of the scale, researchers in this study used a sorti ng procedure and inter rater reliability estimates to eliminate items for each of four theoretical dimensions. Thus, in initial pilot testing, the authors arrived at a 16 item, 4 factor scale ( reliability not available ), whereas I arrived at a 20 item, 2 f actor scale ( = .95) Similar to the current s tudy, the authors compared authentic leadership to transf ormational leadership. They found positive, significant correlations between all dimensions of authentic leadership and all dimensions of transformati onal leadership. In addition, the authors compare d a model where the relationship between authentic leadership and transformational leadership was constrained to 1.0, to one where this relationship was freely estimated, and found significantly better fit f or the latter. They concluded that this supports disciminant validity between the two constructs, yet fail ed to report the factor correlation between the two. In exploratory analyses, I found similar results for constrained and freely estimated models bu t also found an overwhelmingly positive correlation ( R = .96 .97) between the two factors. Therefore, despite better fit for the freely estimated model, I concluded that these two leadership constructs were not empirically distinct. Perhaps Walumbwa et a l. had similar re sults, but failed to report these results in their study Regardless, the fact that each dimensi on of authentic
83 leadership had significant, positive relationship s with each dimension of transformational leadership should have been evidence enough that these two constru cts were not empirically distinguishable. P erhaps the best value that authentic leadership brings to the literature is that adding authentic leadership components to the existing transformational leadership construct help s ad dress some of the ethical issues associated with this leadership style. That is, the authentic leadership components help to distinguish between true transformational leaders and those who are exhibiting transformational leader behaviors for self serving p urposes. As noted by Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) transformational leaders by definition, exhibit idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. However, the se are values neutral behaviors, and t he ultimate goal of the leader in exhibiting these behaviors is not taken into consideration. Therefore, transformational leaders can also be deceptive self serving impulsive, manipulative, and harmful to followers, and still be transformational Authent ic transformational leaders, on t he other hand, exhibit these values neutral transformational behaviors, but these behaviors are also tempered by positive morals and a deep sense of self (i.e., regulatory authenticity) as well as op enness and truthfulness in relationships (i.e., relational authenticity). Therefore, by definition, authentic transformational leaders are not deceptive, self serving, impulsive, manipu lative, or harmful to followers. These differences are apparent in any of the four values ne utral dimensions of transformational leadership. For example, the transformational leader may show
84 individualized consideration by having a one on one discussion with a follower, and recommending classes or programs that will help the follower develop in h is or her role. However, while it may seem to the follower that the leader is concerned for the a role that maintains the power distance between the two. On the other hand an authentic transformational leader would show the same individualized consideration by having a personal development discussion with the follower, however, the leader would either be compelled to let the follower know the nature of the role (i.e., relational authenticity) succession (i.e., regulatory authenticity). These differences apply to both organizational and world leaders alike. In the political realm, for example, one could distinguish between a charismatic, transformat ional leader like Adolf Hitler and an authentic transformational leader like Barrack Obama. Hitler used his idealized influence to create a dictatorship and then systematically annihilate millions of Jews. Oba ma, while having idealized influence that helped him win a Presidential election, also exhibits both regulatory and relational authenticity campaign (i.e., positive morals), an autobiograp hy about his childhood and upbringing (i.e., deep sense of self), and a realistic financial forecast to the American people in the midst of a brutal recession (i.e., openness and truthfulness). Thus, Obama would be categorized a s an au thentic transformatio nal leader. As such Obama has used his idealized influen ce for the greater good, which perhaps providing the greatest contrast
85 for the effect that these two types of leaders can have on their followers has recently resulted in a Nobel Peace Prize. Thus, t he current research on authentic leadership adds value to the existing transformational leadership framework by introducing a values component, which enables one to distinguish between transformational and authentic transformational leaders. T he addition of an authenticity component to transformational leadership also addresse s many gaps in existing leadership research For example, recall Kuhnert and transition from a transactional to a transformational style with time in the leadership role. This, they argued, happened in three stag es. In the Imperial/Lower order Transactional stage the leader is motivated by his/her immedia te personal goals and agendas. In the Interpersonal/Higher order Transactional stage, interperso goals. Finally, in the Institutional/Transformational stage, the leader operates from his or her personal standards and value system in order to achieve long term personal and organizational goals. These leadership stages are theoretical, and the authors state that the effectiveness of leaders in each stage should be examined and compared. Additionally, the authors call for specific research on the process through which these le aders impact follower performance (p. 654). Results from the current study provide support for the effectiveness of leaders at the Institutional/Transformational stage, in that transformational leaders who operate from their personal value system (i.e., au thentic transformational leaders) were shown to have a positive impact on follower behavior s Furt hermore, results of this study specify some of the process variables (e.g., affective
86 supervisor commitment, collective identity, trust, positive psychologica l capital) through which this occurs. Authentic transformational leadership and psychological outcomes. Authentic transformational leadership was found to be directly related to a number of follower perception and follower motivation variables. First, fo llowers with authentic transformational leaders were more likely to perceive them as ideal leaders (i.e., greater general leader impression). This is in line with research by Endrissat et al. (2007), who found that authenticity was a key component to what most general form. findings have been verified in the current, quantitative study. Considering these similar findings, and that Endrissat et al. is a fairly recent study, it can be concluded that authentic transformational is an ideal leadership form in the modern day. Thus, those who wish to conduct additional research on the authentic transformational leadership construct can be more certain of the utility of their findings. The second follower perception variable related to authentic transfor mational leadership was satisfaction with the leader This provides further support for the research of Judge, Piccolo, and Ilies (2004) who found that leaders who sh owed more consideration for followers were given higher ratings for follower satisfaction than leaders who just concentrated on initiating structure. Authentic transformational leaders seek to build open and trusting relationships with followers, and in th e process, show high levels of consideration for the follower Therefore, it is likely that relational authenticity is a major contributing factor for the strong relationship ( r = .85) between
87 authentic transformational leadership an d satisfaction with the leader. Taking a closer look at the items followers rated authentic transformational leaders highly on the items, m Combining these findings with the findings for Hypothesis 2, and researchers can begin to see the impression that authentic transformational leaders make on followers. That is, followers see them as ideal leaders who use favorable leadership methods that are aligned with employee work styles. Consideri ng this, it is no wonder that followers also gave high ratings for motivational factors a topic that is discussed next. Authentic transformational leadership and follower behavior. The first follower motivation variable that was found to be related to au thentic transformational l eadership wa s affective supervisor commitment. As noted in the introduction, not much research exists on this variable. However, findings from this study highlight its importance. First, there was a strong relationship between aut hentic transformational leadership and affective supervisor commitment, indicating that individuals with authentic transformational leade rs had high degrees of positive, emotional commitment to the leader Second, as a result of this commitment, employees had higher levels of task performance. This supports and expands upon the work of Becker and Kernan (2003), who found that affective supervisor commitment was related to task performance when continuance and normative commitment were controlled. Add in the relationship between authentic transformational leadership and affective supervisor commitment and researchers have a clearer understanding of one of the mechanisms through which leadership affects employee task performance (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993)
88 The second follower motivation variable that was related to authentic T his provides further identity, which has been found in a number of studies (e.g., Shamir et al., 1993; Paul et al., 2001; Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Furthermore, this answers a call by Van Knippeneberg et al. (2004) for additional research on other leadership factors associated wit h collective identity. Specifically, transformational leaders who also have high levels of regulatory and relational authenticity are likely to elicit collective identity in their followers. In addition this sense of collective identity resulted in a less er degree of workplace deviance for the employee. Thus, there was a direct relationship between authentic transformational leadership and collective identity, as well as an indirect relationship between this new leadership variable and workplace deviance. Most research on leadership and workplace deviance focus on the negative aspects of the leader (e.g., Hershcovis et al., 2007), which result in a higher degree of deviance. However, the current study offers insight into the positive aspects of the leader, which ultimately result in a lesser degree of deviance. In addition, one of the mechanisms through which this occurs (i.e., collective identity) has been identified, which further clarifies the nature of this relationship. The third follower motivation va riable that was related to authentic The positive relationship between authentic transformational leadership and trust in the leader is similar to that found for transformational leadershi p in previous research. However, recall
89 that it was originally hypothesized that the addition of authentic components to transformational l eadership would result in a great er relationship than that found for transformational leadership alone. Dirks and Fer rin (2002) found a meta analytic correlation of = .72 between transformational leadership and trust. In the current study, a correlation of r = .89 was found between authentic transformational leadership and trust. Thus, it seems that adding the components of regulatory and relational authenticity mig ht indeed make this relationship even stronger. However, additional research is needed in this area to be sure Another finding from the Dirks and Ferrin meta analysis that i s further supported in the current study is that employee trust was related to emp loyee job performance. As pointed out by the authors, this may be due to the principle of social exchange, where employees are willing to work harder in exchange for the positive treatment they are receiving from the supervisor. Thus, another mechanism thr ough which leadership behavior affects employee job performance (Shamir et al, 1993) has been identified in the current study. Interestingly, although authentic transformational leadership was directly related to follower collective identity and trust, a nd also directly related to the follower outcome variable OCB, neither collective identity nor trust mediated the relationship between leader ship and OCB These findings could be explained by looking at the level of analysis for each pair of variables. Spe cifically, the significant direct relationship between authentic transformational leadership and trust collective identity, and OCB suggest that these leaders develop a greater sense of affinity within the follower for the leader (dyad level), workgroup ( group level), and organization (organization level),
90 respectively. However, it is not through a greater affinity to the leader or workgroup that this latter relationship exists. That is, although authentic transformational leaders can develop high levels o f trust with followers and highly cohesive teams, these factors will not result in greater organizational citizen ship behavior from the follower. Rather, it is likely that the relationship between authentic transformational leadership and OCB is mediated b of organization (public vs. non profit), organizational and national culture (extent to which good deeds are appreciated) and even the state of the economy (extent to which followers ar Thus, although a direct relationship exists in the current study between authentic transformational leadership and OCB, this relationship may be better explained by third, macro level variables. What mediators do exist fo r this relationship is a question to be answered in future research. The final follower motivation variable that was related to authentic As discussed in the introduction, Luth ans and Avolio (2003) proposed that positive psychological capital (i.e., confidence, hope, optimism, resilience) could be developed by the follower through positive behavioral modeling of the leader. These authors also describe authentic leaders as confid ent, hopeful, optimistic, and resilient. Thus, these positive attributes of the leader could be developed and displayed by the follower through time in the leadership role The current study provided general support for this idea. That is, authentic transf ormational leadership was associated with high levels of positive psychological capital in the follower. It is likely that this is attributed more to the
91 authentic component than the transformational component in the authentic transformational variable, as purely transformational leaders have not been described as confident, hopeful, optimistic, and resilient. Regardless of the nature of its development, follower positive psychological capital was associated with increased levels of task performance. This f inding is supportive of research by Luthans et al. (2007), who found that positive psychological capital was related to job performance. These authors used self ratings of employee job performance, and this relationship was further supported in the current study through the use of supervisor ratings. Thus, a third mechanism through which leader behavior affects employee job performance (Shamir et al., 1993) was found in the current study. Practical Applications Findings from this study can also be applied in the business world. It is a key priority for high performing organizations to keep their employees motivated and productive. The current study provides practical applications for how this can be done by focusing efforts on a specific leadership style. First, findings from this study highlight the positive organizational outcomes for developing authentic transformational leaders. According to Rotundo and Sackett (2002), task performance, organizational citizenship behavior, and workplace deviance represe nt the three major dimensions of employee job performance. In the current study, authentic transformational leadership has been indirectly tied to two of the three task performance and workplace deviance, with both having a great deal of impact on the bot tom line
92 T he importance of high employee task performance is tacit knowledge in most organizations However, some popular leadership styles have been associated with perceived, but not actual, organizational performance (e.g., Waldman, Ramirez, House, & Puranum, 2001; Tosi, Misangyi, Fanelli, Waldman, & Yammarino, 2004; Agle, Nagarajan, Sonnenfeld, & Srinivasan, 2006). For example, Agle et al. (2006) found that CEOs who we re pe rceived to be more charismatic we re also perceived to be more effective. Howev er, when looking at actual performance numbers (e.g., stock returns, sales growth, return on assets) there was no statistical link between leader charisma and organizational performance In a similar study, Waldman et al. (2001) found that highly charismat ic CEOs actually performed worse than their low charisma counter parts when the business environment was certain (vs. uncertain). Considering these findings, and the fact that e mployee task performance is inextricably linked to the financial performance of the organization, this study provides assurance that training and development initiatives aimed at producing authentic transformational leaders will likely result in observable and sustainable performance for the organization. This is because authentic tra nsformational leaders, while still displaying charisma or idealized influence, will also be open an d honest with their followers, will balance both positive and negative performance feedback, and will operate on the basis of positive morals. These factors keep the leader grounded and practical. Thus, an authentic transformational leader is less likely to develop grandiose visions of future states that, although generating initial excitement are either difficult or impossible to implement, and ultimately cr eate frustration and burnout from the follower. Rather, the authentic
93 well defined, and is developed with the interests of the follower in mind. T herefore the authentic component of authentic transformation al leadership serves as a buffer for the ultimately results in greater task performance. On the opposite side of the job performance spectrum is workplace deviance. However, t pointed out in previous research (e.g., Greenberg, 1997; Murphy, 1993; Vardi & Weitz, 2004), workplace deviance is a major problem for organizations, with estimated annual costs of $6 billion to $200 billion in the United States alone. Thus, developing authentic transformational leaders will also eventually lead to better financial performance through the absence of workplace deviance. The value of authentic transformational lead ership in an organization has been shown repeatedly in the findings of the current study. As an extension of this, organizations that choose to promote authentic transformational leadership stand to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace. Ilies et al. (2005) proposed a number of strategies for increasing aut hentic leadership in organization s many of which can also be applied to authentic transformational leadership. For example, to increase regulatory authenticity, organizations can use the constr ucts of positive self concept and emotional intelligence as selection criteria. F urther more, regulatory authentic ity can be developed through the use of multi source feedback and emotional intelligence training. For relational authenticity, leaders can be selected by assessing past work relationships and past behaviors in a structured interview. This behavior could also be further developed
94 through the use of upward feedback and informal performance discussions. Similarly to that of the authentic components selection systems can also be designed to assess the components of transformational leadership (i.e., individual consideration, idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation). Furthermore, t ransformational leadership training ha s been shown to have a positive impact on follower attitudes and financial performance (e.g., Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996). These are just a few examples of strategies that can increase authentic transformational leadership in organizations, and prope r buy in is needed for any of these strategies to have their intended effects. Findings from the current study could be used to help gain support from organizational decision makers, thereby ensuring that the proper resources are dedicated to these selecti on and training initiatives. Limitations and Future Research Although the current study findings are important for both theory and practice, there are some limitations that should be addressed. First, both pilot studies were comprised mostly of college s tudents. Although these studies were primarily conducted for scale validation, representation from a more diverse subset of the working population would have enhanced the generalizeability of the results. Furthermore, although industry representation varie d considerably in the primary data set, all participants were U.S. citizens. Although results of the primary study were promising in general, these results should be applied to other countries and cultures with caution. Another limitation is the nearly e xclusive use of self report measures Although task performance and OCB were assessed by using supervisor report, each variable relied
95 on data from only one source. The use of multiple sources of information would provide greater legitimacy to the importan t findings from this study by decreasing the risk of mono method bias, instability of correlation coefficients, and other reporting biases, as discussed by Spector (1994). This is especially true when assessing the concept of authentic leadership. That is, it is not clear who is in the best position to provide ratings for authentic leaders, and there are negatives to both self and other reported data. Self report data may be biased by factors such as social desirability whereas data reported by others can not capture behavior that is not directly observable, and also cannot capture the true intention of the leader. Therefore, in future studies it is desirable to collect data from multiple sources when attempting to assess authentic transformational leadersh ip. A major area for future research is to expand the nomological network of authentic transformational leadership. First, there are a number of antecedents that could be examined. For example, Shamir and Eilam (2005) propose that in order to develop an a uthentic leadership component, leaders must first have self knowledge, self concept clarity, and personal role merger, which are derived from an understanding of the story. Similarly, Gardner et al. (2005) argue that the leader must understan d his or her personal history, but must also have certain trigger events that will spark the authentic component of leadership. The nature of the effect that authentic transformational leaders have on their followers is another area of future research. For example, Gardner et al (2005) propose that authenticity in the leadership position will result in follower authenticity through the positive modeling of the leader. This could be one of many mediating variables between authentic transformational leadersh ip and
96 follower motivations (i.e., affective supervisor commitment, collective identity, trust, positive psychological capital). Additional research into the moderators between authentic transformational leadership and follower outcomes would also help t o clarify the nature of this relationship. For example, authentic transformational leadership may be more desirable or effective at different levels within the organization. A mid level manager, for instance, may have more freedom to be authentic and may be admired by followers because of this. However, at the CEO level, the leader represents the entire company, and must behave in a manner b efitting the position. Considering the level of scrutiny involved the re is less of a chance for a CEO to behave auth entically while still meeting the demands of all stakeholders. authentically may not be seen in a favorable light. Therefore, it is possible that authentic transformational leadership is more effective for m id level leaders than senior leaders within organizations. Finally, t he nature of the leader follower relationship may also moderate the effectiveness of authentic transformational leadership. For example, in a manufacturing setting, leaders and follower s have daily, and perhaps hourly interactions, and therefore the leader has ample opportunity to affect follower behavior. In addition, personal stories and similar experiences between leaders and followers may resonate well with the follower, which may ul timately result in positive follower outcomes such as higher performance. Whereas in a more innovative, knowledge based organization, leader and follower interaction s happen less frequently, and may even be seen as a hindrance to the
97 follower It is also less likely that personal stories and the degree of similarity between the leader and follower will result in more positive outcomes. Other moderators such as organizational culture, general economic factors, and even national culture could fur ther explain the nature of the relationship between authentic transformational leadership and follower and organizational outcomes. Therefore, the effectiveness of authentic transformational leadership may depend on the given situation rather than applyin g universally, as currently theorized. Conclusion The concept of authentic leadership, though popular among many researchers, was not found to be distinguishable from transformational leadership in the current study. However, the combination of these two constructs into an authentic transformational leadership style yielded a number of positive effects for both the employee and the organization. Thus, the authentic leadership concept has served its purpose well and spurred a new line of research for authen tic transformational leadership The current study is one of only a few to b roach the topic of an authentic transformational leader, and the first to offer an empirical analysis of the construct. Findings from this study indicate that time spent further re searching this construct in academia as well as time spent developing these lea ders in the business world are both well worth the investment.
98 R eferences Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, an d normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1 18. Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: an examination of the nine factor full range leadership theory using the Multifac tor Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 261 295. Arbuckle, J. L. (2008a). Crawfordville, FL: Amos Development Corporation. Arbuckle, J. L. (2008 b ). AMOS (Version 17.0) [Computer software]. Crawfordville, FL: Amos Development Corporation. Aristotle (1985). Nicomachean ethics (T. Irwin, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. Avolio, B.J., & Bass, B.M. (1991). The full range leadership development programs: basic and advanced manuals. Binghamton, NY: Bass, Avoli o & Associates. Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M., & Jung, D.I. (1999). Re examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441 462. Avolio, B.J., & Gardner, W.L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315 338. Avolio, B.J., Gardner, W.L., Walumbwa, F.O., Luthans, F., & May, D.R. (2004) Unlocking th e mask: a look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801 823. Avolio, B., Luthans, F., & Walumbwa, F.O. (2004). Authentic leadership: Theory building for veritable sustained perfor mance. Working paper. Gallup Leadership Institute, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. As cited in Avolio, B.J., Gardner, W.L., Walumbwa, F.O., Luthans, F., & May, D.R. (2004) Unlocking the mask: a look at the process by which authentic leaders impact followe r attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801 823.
99 Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 8 1(6), 827 832. Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 1173 1182. Bass, B.M. ( 1985) Leadership and performance beyond expectations New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181 217. Becker, T. E., & Kernan, M. C. (2003). Matching commitment to supervisors and organizations to in role and extra role performance. Human Performance, 16(4), 327 348. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psyc hology, 85(3), 349 360. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238 246. Bentler, P. M., & Bonnett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. P sychological Bulletin, 88, 588 606. Blake, R. & Mouton, J. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1989). Single sample cross validation indices for covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 445 455 Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership New York: Harper & Row. Carmines, E. G., & McIver J. P ( 1981 ) Analyzing models with unobserved variables. In: Social measurement: Current issues G. W. Bohrnstedt and E. F. Borgatta, eds. Beverly Hills: Sage Publicat ions. Chaoping, L., Hui, M., & Kan, S. (2006). The effects of transformational leadership on organizational citizenship behavior. Psychological Science, 29(1), 164 177. Chemers, M. M. (2001). Leadership effectiveness: An integrative review. In M. A. Ho gg, & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 376 399). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
100 Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behav ior, 21, 747 767. Cooper, C.D., Scandura, T.A., & Schriesheim, C.A. (2005). Looking forward but learning from our past: Potential challenges to developing authentic leadership theory and authentic leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 475 493. Cronshaw, S. F., & Lord, R. G. (1987). Effects of categorization, attribution, and encoding processes on leadership perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(1), 97 106. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta analytic findings and imp lications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611 628. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500 507. Endrissat, N., Muller, W R., & Kaudela Baum, S. (2007). En route to an empirically based understanding of authentic leadership. European Management Journal, 25(3), 207 220. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of explor atory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272 299. Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leader effectiveness New York: McGraw Hill. Fleishman, E., Harris, E. F., & Burtt, H. E. (1955). Leadership and supervision in industr y. Columbus: Bureau of Educational Research, Ohio State University. Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2005). Can you see the real me? A self based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadershi p Quarterly, 16, 343 372. Gardner, W. L., & Cleavenger, D. (1998). The impression management strategies associated with transformational leadership at the world class level. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 3 42. George, B. (2007). True north: Dis cover your authentic leadership San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence New York, NY: Bantam Books.
101 Greenberg, J. (1997). Occupational crime (2 nd ed.) Chicago: Nelson Hall. Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupre, K. E., Inness, M., LeBlanc, M. M., & Sivanathan, N. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: A meta analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 228 238. Hogan, J., Rybicki, S. L., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1998). Relations between con textual performance, personality, and occupational advancement. Human Performance, 11(2), 189 207. House, R.J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321 339. House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The so cial scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23, 409 473. Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well being: Understanding leader follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 373 394. Jensen, S.M., & Luthans, F. (2006). Entrepreneurs as authentic leaders: Impact on Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 27(8), 646 666. Jex, S.M. (2002). Organizational psychology: A scientist practitioner app roach. Wiley and Sons: New York. Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a theory of strategic self presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 231 262). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International. Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structur e in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 36 51. Keeley, M. (1995). The trouble with transformational leadership: Toward a federalist ethic for organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5, 67 95. Kenny, D. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. (1983 ). An estimate of variance due to traits in leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 678 685.
102 Kline, R. B. (2004). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling 2 nd ed New York: Guilford. Kuhnert, K.W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactio nal and transformational leadership: A constructive/development analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 648 658. Lee, J. (2005). Effects of leadership and leader member exchange on commitment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(8), 6 55 672. Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw Hill. Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta analytic review of the MLQ literatur e. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385 425. Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2004). Leadership processes and follower self identity. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. Luthans, F. & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership: A positive development ap proach. In Positive Organizational Scholarship. Eds. Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. San Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler. pp. 241 258. Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological capital : Developing the human competiti ve edge New York: Oxford University Press. Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60, 541 572. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130 149. May, D. R., Chan, A. Y. L., Hodges, T. D., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Developing the moral comp onent of authentic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32, 247 260. McKendall, M. (1993). The tyranny of change: Organizational development revisited. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 93 104. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three component concep tualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review 1, 61 89.
103 Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta analysis of anteced ents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20 52. Murphy, K. R. (1993). Honesty in the workplace Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Nguni, S., Sleegers, P., & Denessen, E. (2006). Transformational and transactional leadership effec organizational citizenship behavior in primary schools: The Tanzanian case. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 145 177. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behav ior: The good soldier syndrome (1 st ed.) Lexington, Massachusetts/Toronto: D.C. Health and Company. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107 142. Price, T. L. (2003). The ethics of authentic transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 67 81. Purvanova, R. K., Bono, J. E., & Dzieweczynski, J. (2006). Transformational leadership, job characteristics, and organizational citizenship performance. Human Performance, 19(1), 1 22. Rai, S., & Sinha, A. (2000). Transformational leadership, organizational commitment, and facilitating climate. Psychol ogical Studies, 45(1 2), 33 42. Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38 555 572. Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importan ce of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 66 80. stories approach to authen tic leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 395 417. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577 594.
104 Silvia, P. J., & Duval, T. S. (2001). Objective self awareness theory: Recent progress and enduring problems. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 230 241. Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearance, private realities: The psychology of self monitoring. New York, NY: W .H. Freeman & Co. Sparrowe, R. T. (2005). Authentic leadership and the narrative self. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 419 439. Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self report questionnaires in OB research: A comment of the use of a controversial method. Jo urnal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 385 392. .S., & Victor, B. (1995). The moral quandary of transformational leadership: Change for whom? Research in Organizational Change and Development, 8, 123 143. Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 825 856. Vardi, Y. & Weitz, E. (2004) Misbehavior in organizations: Theory, research, and management Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a t heory based measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89 126. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601 617. Wood, G. M. (2008 ). Authentic leadership: Do we really need another leadership theory? (Doctoral dissertation, George Mason University, 2007). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68, 4386. Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in organizations (4 th ed.). Englewoo d Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Yukl, G. & Van Fleet, D.D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and
105 organizational psychology (2 nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 147 197). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
107 Appendix A: Authentic Leadership S cale Pilot Survey Department of Psychology Tampa, Florida 33620 Dear Respondent, Thank you for your participation in the current study on le adership. The survey that follows asks questions about a leader with whom you are currently working. Your responses will be used to help clarify the nature of different leadership styles, with the ultimate goal of enhancing the effectiveness of our leaders Participation in this study is voluntary and any information you provide will be completely anonymous. Your participation in this project should take approximately 5 10 minutes. Thank you kindly for considering this request. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me by e mail, phone, or mail. Matthew D. Tuttle, M.A. 4202 E. Fowler Ave., PCD 4118G Doctoral Candidate Tampa, FL 33620 7200 Industrial/Organizational Psychology Phone: (813) 545 4615 University of South Florida E mail: email@example.com Department of Psychology h ttp://www.cas.usf.edu/psychology
108 Appendix A: (Continued) Instructions: Think of a person in a leadership position with whom you are currently working (e.g., your supervisor, manager, director, maj or professor etc.). This questionnaire is to descri be the leadership style of this individual as you perceive it. Please answer all items on this answer sheet. If an item is irrelevant, or if you are unsure or do not know the answer, leave the answer bl ank. Please answer this questionnaire anonymously. Fifty descriptive statements are listed on the following pages. Judge how frequently each statement fits the person you are describing. Use the following rating scale: T HE P ERSON I A M R ATING . 1 Behaves in an ethical manner........................................................................... .......... 0 1 2 3 4 2 .............................. ............... 0 1 2 3 4 3 Displays a great deal o ......................... ............... 0 1 2 3 4 4 .... ............ .. .... 0 1 2 3 4 5 ............. .... 0 1 2 3 4 6 ...... .......... 0 1 2 3 4 7 ...................... ..... 0 1 2 3 4 8 ........ ... ..... 0 1 2 3 4 9 Displays a posit ................. 0 1 2 3 4 10 above all other concerns 0 1 2 3 4 11 Talks about personal strengths ........... 0 1 2 3 4 12 Does things without a clear focus or goal................................................... ............. 0 1 2 3 4 13 Talks about personal weaknesses ..................................... ....... ....... ...... 0 1 2 3 4 14 Reflects upon his/her thoughts and actions................................................. ..... ........ 0 1 2 3 4 15 Loses control of his/her emotions........................................................... ............ ..... 0 1 2 3 4 16 ....... ...... 0 1 2 3 4 17 .............................. ... .. 0 1 2 3 4 18 Gets overwhelmed by situations or circumstances..................................... ...... ..... 0 1 2 3 4 19 ........................ ........ ...... 0 1 2 3 4 20 Behaves incon sistently when dealing with people or situations................. .... ... .... 0 1 2 3 4 S S o o m m e e t t i i m m e e s s 2 2 O O n n c c e e i i n n a a w w h h i i l l e e 1 1 How long have you been working with this person? __________ years __________ months N N o o t t a a t t a a l l l l 0 0 F F a a i i r r l l y y o o f f t t e e n n 3 3 F F r r e e q q u u e e n n t t l l y y , i i f f n n o o t t a a l l w w a a y y s s 4 4
109 21 Knows and a ccepts personal limitations ........................................ ......... .. 0 1 2 3 Appendix A: (Continued) 22 Handles construc tive feedback about himself/herself in a mature manner........ ... ....... 0 1 2 3 4 23 Gives excuses or denies responsib ility after performing poorly ....0 1 2 3 4 24 Is not open to discussing personal weaknesses............. ............................... .......... ......0 1 2 3 4 25 Actively seeks out or enc ourages suggestions for personal improvement .. ... 0 1 2 3 4 26 Makes it difficult t ....... 0 1 2 3 4 27 .. ............................... 0 1 2 3 4 28 Uses constructive feedback 0 1 2 3 4 29 Exaggerates personal abilities or qualities..... ........... ................................. ............... ..0 1 2 3 4 30 ................0 1 2 3 4 31 ................. ............... 0 1 2 3 4 32 ... ..............0 1 2 3 4 33 ...... 0 1 2 3 4 3 4 ............. ...0 1 2 3 4 35 Keeps to himself/herself, does not communicate openly with me.............. ............ .... 0 1 2 3 4 36 Freely discusses life ......... ...... 0 1 2 3 4 37 Asks about my life outside of work..................................................... ........................ 0 1 2 3 4 38 Seems too busy to care about the lives o f 0 1 2 3 4 39 ......... 0 1 2 3 4 40 Is open and honest in relationships and inte 0 1 2 3 4 41 Acts according to his/her ow ..... ............ 0 1 2 3 4 42 Goes along with how others say he/she should behave ... ............. ............... ............... 0 1 2 3 4 43 Is comfortable with ing ing things differ ently. ........... ................ 0 1 2 3 4 44 .. .................. 0 1 2 3 4 45 .............. ................ 0 1 2 3 4 46 Makes decisions that go against personal values or beliefs in orde r to please others ..0 1 2 3 4 47 Changes his/her behavior or style ......... ...... ........... 0 1 2 3 4 48 Leads from his/her own 0 1 2 3 4 49 Wishes to attain status, honors, or other personal benefits through the leadership position.... .................... ............................................................................. 0 1 2 3 4 50 ................ 0 1 2 3 4
110 Appendix B: Transformation al Leader ship Items ( adapted fro m MLQ 5X; Bass, 1985) Individualized Consideration: 1. Spends time teaching and coaching 2. Treats me as an individual rather than just a member of a group 3. Considers me as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from others 4. Helps me to develop my str engths Idealized Influence Attributed : 1. Instills pride in me for being associated with him/her 2. Goes beyond self interest for the good of the group 3. Acts in ways that builds my respect 4. Displays a sense of power and confidence Idealized Influence Behavior : 1. Talks about their most important values and beliefs 2. Specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose 3. Considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions 4. Emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission Inspirational Moti vation: 1. Talks optimistically about the future 2. Talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished 3. Articulates a compelling vision of the future 4. Expresses confidence that goals will be achieved Intellectual Stimulation: 1. Re examines critical assumptio ns to question whether they are appropriate 2. Seeks differing perspectives when solving problems 3. Gets me to look at problems from many different angles 4. Suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments
111 Appendix C: Transactional Leadership Items ( a dapted from MLQ 5X; Bass, 1985) Contingent Reward : 1. Provides me with assistance in exchange for my efforts 2. Discusses in specific terms who is responsible for achieving performance targets 3. Makes clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals ar e achieved 4. Expresses satisfaction when I meet expectations Management by Exception Active : 1. Focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from standards 2. Concentrates his/her full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints, and failures 3. Keeps track of all mistakes 4. Directs my attention toward failures to meet standards Management by Exception Passive : 1. Fails to interfere until problems become serious 2. Waits for things to go wrong before taking action 3. Shows that he/she is a fi 4. Demonstrates that problems must become chronic before taking action
112 Appendix D : Genera l Leader Impression Items (Cronshaw & Lord, 1987) 1. My supervisor exhibits leadership 2. I am willing to choose my superv isor as a formal leader 3. My supervisor is a typical leader 4. My supervisor engages in leader behavior to a good extent 5. My supervisor fits my image of a leader
113 Appendix E : Affec tive Supervisor Commitment Items (adapted from Allen & Meyer, 1990) 1. I would be v ery happy to spend the rest of my career with this supervisor 2. I enjoy discussing my supervisor with people outside of my organization 3. 4. I think I could easily become as attached to another supervisor as I am this one (R) 5. 6. 7. My supervisor has a great deal of meaning to me 8. I do not feel a strong sense of belonging with my supervisor (R)
114 App endix F : Collective Identity Items (adapted from Conger et al. 2000) 1. I see myself and my supervisor as a cohesive team 2. Between my supervisor and I, our conflict is out in the open and is constructively handled 3. My supervisor and I share the same values about our task and purpose 4. My supervisor and I are remarkably similar in our values about what has to be done 5. My supervisor and I have widely shared consensus about our goals and the approaches needed to achieve them
115 Appendix G : PsyCap Questionnaire Item s (PCQ; Luthans, Youssef, and Avolio, 2007) 1. I feel confident analyzing a long term problem to find a solution 2. I feel confident in representing my work area in meetings with management 3. y 4. I feel confident helping to set targets/goals in my work area 5. I feel confident contacting people outside the company (e.g., suppliers, customers) to discuss problems 6. I feel confident presenting information to a group of colleagues 7. If I should find mysel f in a jam at work, I could think of many ways to get out of it 8. At the present time, I am energetically pursuing my work goals 9. There are lots of ways around any problem 10. Right now I see myself as being pretty successful at work 11. I can think of many ways to r each my current work goals 12. At this time, I am meeting the work goals that I have set for myself 13. When I have a setback at work, I have trouble recovering from it, moving on (R) 14. I usually manage difficulties one way or another at work 15. o to speak, at work if I have to 16. I usually take stressful things at work in stride 17. 18. I feel I can handle many things at a time at this job 19. When things are uncertain for me at work, I usually expect the best 20. If something can go wrong for me work wise, it will (R) 21. I always look on the bright side of things regarding my job 22. ains to work 23. In this job, things never work out the way I want them to (R) 24. every cloud has a silver lining
116 Ap pendix H : Employee Task Performance Items (Becker & Kernan, 2003) 1. Adequately completes assigned duties 2. Meets formal p erformance requirements of the job 3. Neglects aspects of the job he or she is obligated to perform (R) 4. Fulfills responsibilities specified in the job description 5. Engages in activities that can positively affect his or her performance evaluation 6. Performs task s that are expected of him or her 7. Consistently performs work tasks in a high quality manner
117 Appendix I : Organization al Citizenship Behavior Items (Podsakoff et al., 1990) Conscientiousness: 1. Attendance at work is above the norm 2. Does not take extra breaks 3. Obeys company rules and regulations even when no one is watching 4. Is one of my most conscientious employees 5. Sportsmanship: 6. Consumes a lot of time complaining about trivial matters (R) 7. Always 8. 9. Always finds fault with what the organization is doing (R) 10. Civic Virtue: 11. Attends meeti ngs that are not mandatory, but are considered important 12. Attends functions that are not required, but help the company image 13. Keeps abreast of changes in the organization 14. Reads and keeps up with organizational announcements, memos, and so on Courtesy: 15. Tak es steps to try to prevent problems with other workers 16. 17. Does not abuse the rights of others 18. Tries to avoid creating problems for coworkers 19. Considers the impact of his/her actions on coworkers Altruism: 20. Helps others who have been absent 21. Helps others who have heavy workloads 22. Helps orient new people even though it is not required 23. Willingly helps others who have work related problems 24. Is always ready to lend a helping hand to those around him/her
118 Ap pendix J : Workplace Deviance Items (Bennett & Robinson, 2000) 1. Taken property from work without permission 2. Spent too much time fantasizing or daydreaming instead of working 3. Made fun of someone at work 4. Falsified a receipt to get reimbursed for more money t han you spent on business expenses 5. Said something hurtful to someone at work 6. Taken an additional or a longer break than is acceptable at your workplace 7. Made an ethnic, religious, or racial remark or joke at work 8. Came in late to work without permission 9. Lit tered your work environment 10. Cursed at someone at work 11. 12. Intentionally worked slower than you could have worked 13. Discussed confidential company information with an unauthorized person 14. Played a mean prank on someone at work 15. Acted rudely toward someone at work 16. Used an illegal drug or consumed alcohol on the job 17. Put little effort into your work 18. Publicly embarrassed someone at work 19. Dragged out work in order to get overtime
119 A ppendix K: Models and Standardized Estimates for Pilot 2 Impression Management Comparisons Figure 1 6 A Model 1: Self promotion freely estimated model. Authentic Leadership Transformational Leadership .97 RegA B RegA A RelA B RelA A IC II A II B IM IS e2 e1 e3 e4 e8 e9 e10 e11 e12 .83 .86 .84 .86 .84 .94 .90 .84 Chi square = 202.7 2 p = .00 Normed chi square = 2.82 CFI = .97 RMSE A = .08 .79 Self Promotion SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4 SP5 3.85 3.52 .83 .89 .72 .82 .71 e13 e14 e15 e16 e17 e18 .52 .67
120 Appendix K: (Continued) Figure 1 6 B Model 2: Self promotion equal constraint model. Chi square = 242.86 p = .00 Normed chi square = 3.33 CFI = .95 RMSEA = .09 .46 Authentic Leadership Transformational Leadership .96 RegA B RegA A RelA B RelA A IC II A II B IM e2 e1 e3 e4 e8 e9 e10 e11 e12 .82 .88 .85 .86 .84 .94 .89 .84 .78 Self Promotion SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4 SP5 .16 .13 .84 .90 .71 .81 .70 e13 e14 e15 e16 e17 e18 .69 IS
121 Ap pendix K: (Continued) Figure 1 6 C Model 3: Intimidation freely estimated model. Authentic Leadership Transformational Leadership .97 RegA B RegA A RelA B RelA A IC II A II B IM IS e2 e1 e3 e4 e8 e9 e10 e11 e12 .83 .85 .82 .86 .84 .94 .90 .85 Chi square = 212.50 p = .00 Normed chi square = 2 .95 CFI = .96 RMSEA = .08 .80 Intimidation Intim1 Intim2 Intim3 Intim4 Intim5 3.37 2.71 .45 .77 .46 .87 .86 e13 e14 e15 e16 e17 e18 .55 .65
122 Appendix K: (Continued) Figure 1 6 D Model 4: Intimidation equal constraint model. Authentic Leadership Transformational Leadership .96 RegA B RegA A RelA B RelA A IC II A II B IM IS e2 e1 e3 e4 e8 e9 e10 e11 e12 .83 .88 .85 .86 .84 .94 .90 .84 Chi square = 243.42 p = .00 Normed chi square = 3.33 CFI = .95 RMSEA = .09 .78 Intimidation Intim1 Intim2 Intim3 Intim4 Intim5 .34 .29 .45 .77 .46 .87 .86 e13 e14 e15 e16 e17 e18 .46 .67
123 Appendix K: (Continued) Figure 1 6 E Model 5: Ingratiation freely estimated model. Ingrat9 e22 .01 .50 .65 .60 Authentic Leadership Transformational Leadership 96 RegA B RegA A Re lA B RelA A IC II A II B IM IS e2 e1 e3 e4 e8 e9 e10 e11 e12 .81 .89 .86 .86 .85 .93 .89 .85 Chi square = 421.32 p = .00 Normed chi square = 3.30 CFI = .92 RMSEA = .09 .76 Ingratiation Ingrat1 Ingrat2 Ingrat3 Ingrat4 Ingrat5 1.01 .13 .58 .62 .85 .65 .43 e13 e14 e15 e16 e17 e18 .42 .71 Ingrat6 Ingrat7 Ingrat8 e19 e20 e21
124 Appendix K: (Continued) Figure 1 6 F Model 6: Ingratiation equal constraint model. Authentic Leadership Transformational Leadership .96 RegA B RegA A RelA B RelA A IC II A II B IM IS e2 e1 e3 e4 e8 e9 e10 e11 e12 .81 .90 .87 .86 .85 .93 .89 .85 Chi square = 431.48 p = .00 Normed chi square = 3.29 CFI = .92 RMS E A = .09 .76 Ingratiation Ingrat1 Ingrat2 Ingrat3 Ingrat4 Ingrat5 .47 .40 .58 .61 .84 .66 .43 e13 e14 e15 e16 e17 e18 .40 .70 Ingrat6 Ingrat7 Ingrat8 e19 e20 e21 Ingrat9 e22 .02 .50 .65 .61
About the Author Matthew Tuttle was born in Toledo, Ohio in September 1979. He graduated from Maumee High School in Maumee, Ohio with the class of 1998, and received a B.A. in Psychology from Bowling Green State University, graduating Magna Cum Laude with the class of 2002. In 2006, he received a M.A. in Industrial /Organizational Psychology from the University of South Florida, and a Ph.D. in 2009. In addition to his graduate studies, he has also had the opport unity to work for research firms and companies in private, non profit, and public sectors, and serving mili tary, government, and corporate clients. Currently, Matthew lives in Atlanta, GA, where he enjoys watching the Braves and the Dawgs (when the Buckeyes are not playing), being actively involved at church, in the community, and in the great outdoors, and, mo st of all, spending time with his girlfriend Natalie.