Professional Documents
Culture Documents
research-article2015
JABXXX10.1177/0021886315617531The Journal of Applied Behavioral ScienceAgote et al.
Article
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
2016, Vol. 52(1) 35–63
Authentic Leadership © The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
Perception, Trust in the sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0021886315617531
Leader, and Followers’ jabs.sagepub.com
Emotions in Organizational
Change Processes
Abstract
Despite the increasing interest in emotions at work, there is still a need for more
research that focus on the antecedents of emotions in organizational change
contexts. Moreover, literature on the subject considers leadership and trust to be
fundamental when dealing with change processes. Taking into account both ideas, it
is proposed here that authentic leadership (AL) perception can influence followers’
trust and emotions during change. To test these hypotheses, we gathered and
analyzed the experience of 102 Spanish human resource managers using structural
equation modeling based on partial least squares. Findings show that AL is directly
and positively related to followers’ trust in the leader and the experience of positive
emotions. Furthermore, we found that trust mediates the relation between AL
perception and the experience of negative emotions. Based on these findings, some
practical implications are proposed, such as the implementation of training initiatives
in order to provide human resource managers with a better understanding of the
AL concept and facilitate different actions that could be carried out by them so as to
contribute to trust building.
Keywords
authentic leadership, trust, emotions
1Talleres
Villalvilla, Burgos, Spain
2DeustoBusiness School, San Sebastian, Spain
3NHH, Bergen, Norway
Corresponding Author:
Nekane Aramburu, Deusto Business School, Camino de Mundaiz, 50, San Sebastian 20012, Spain.
Email: nekane.aramburu@deusto.es
36 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 52(1)
Introduction
Change has become an increasingly common context in organizations (Kiefer, 2005).
Acknowledging this managerial concern, researchers have long tried to find the key
success factors in change processes. One overarching conclusion has been that the
reactions of change recipients are an important determinant of success and failure in
implementing change. Much of this research has, until recently, taken on a cognitive
and/or behavioral perspective in which emotions have been considered an obstruction
(Kiefer, 2002). However, new integrative alternatives are arising to fill the gaps left by
cognitive theories. It is now thought that emotions guide people in adapting to new
environments; they are thus a vital part of change and do not always have negative
consequences as used to be thought (Kiefer, 2002). Several proposals, such as affec-
tive events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) or informational theories (Forgas,
1995, 2002), posit that people not only engage in behavior rooted in conscious think-
ing and deliberation but also in more spontaneous, emotion-based behavior, especially
in uncertain and ambiguous contexts (e.g., organizational changes) or when they lack
sufficient interest, motivation, or resources to create a more elaborate response
(Bartunek, Balogun, & Do, 2011; Forgas, 1995, 2002; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996).
Interest in emotions in the organizational context has been intense and increasingly
popular. However, many theoretical and methodological opportunities remain (Brief
& Weiss, 2002). In particular, research has focused more on the consequences of emo-
tions than on explaining how and why they occur and how they can be explained
(Giæver, 2009b). Thus, it is proposed that more research is needed on antecedents of
emotions during organizational change to understand better the factors underlying suc-
cessful change implementation (Lines, Sáenz, & Aramburu, 2010). And this is exactly
what this investigation attempts to do.
In addition to emotions, leadership style and level of trust in the leader are consid-
ered fundamental elements for the success of change processes, and have also been
thought to influence emotions. On the one hand, few articles have tried to demonstrate
the general belief that leaders’ behavior is a fundamental source of employees’ emo-
tions at work. In terms of our interest in a relatively new leadership style, there has been
a smaller amount of research in the form of authentic leadership (AL). And there are
even fewer studies if we focus on organizational change contexts. On the other hand,
trust is considered an important element in the effectiveness of leadership; however, the
role of trust and emotions in leading and following is still underresearched. Therefore,
questions concerning whether and how authentic leaders may influence followers’
emotions, how they can build trust in the leader, or whether trust plays any role in the
relationship between leaders’ behavior and followers’ emotions remain unanswered.
Regarding the role of human resource managers (HRMs) in organizational changes,
this has also been examined from different perspectives giving rise to multiple propos-
als (e.g., Alfes, Truss, & Gill, 2010; Caldwell, 2001; Ulrich, 1997). But there is still a
lack of research into the role of HRMs’ emotions in change processes. Moreover, there
are no studies that focus on an analysis of the influence of the leadership style (in par-
ticular, AL) on HRMs’ emotions.
Agote et al. 37
The present study addresses the aforementioned gaps in literature on leadership and
emotions (i.e., lack of studies about the antecedents of emotions during organizational
change, and about whether and how authentic leaders may influence followers’ emo-
tions, how they can build trust in the leader, or whether trust plays any role in the
relationship between leaders’ behavior and followers’ emotions), by examining why
AL behavior matters, and how it may influence followers’ level of trust in the leader
and emotions during organizational change processes. In concrete terms, this empiri-
cal study will be centered on HRMs and the AL behavior of their direct leaders. Direct
leaders’ leadership attributes will be considered that trigger events of HRMs’ emo-
tional reactions, based mainly on an appraisal theories of emotions. In particular, their
perceptions of their direct leaders’ AL behavior and level of trust in their leaders will
be analyzed as antecedents of HRMs’ positive and negative emotions during organiza-
tional change processes. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to
explore the relation between followers’ AL perception, trust, and emotions in organi-
zational change contexts.
Kinicki, & Scheck, 2002; Giæver & Hellesø, 2010; Kiefer, 2005), while others
prefer to take a positive perspective (e.g., Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans, 2008).
Qualitative techniques, mostly case studies, have been popular (e.g., Balogun,
Bartunek, & Do, 2010; Bartunek et al., 2011; Bartunek, Rousseau, Rudolph, &
Depalma, 2006; Giæver, 2009a; Giæver & Hellesø, 2010; Huy, 2002,2005; Kiefer,
2002; Smollan & Sayers, 2009; Smollan, Sayers, & Matheny, 2010; Stam &
Stanton, 2010; Turnbull, 2002; Vince, 2006). However, quantitative studies are
also present in literature (e.g., Avey et al., 2008; Lines et al., 2010; Lines, Sáenz,
Aramburu, & Rivera, 2009; Seo, Taylor, & Hill, 2007). Some articles are mainly
interested in managers’ emotions (e.g., Balogun et al., 2010; Huy, 2002; Kiefer,
2002; Mossholder, Settoon, Armenakis, & Harris, 2000; Vince, 2006) and others
in the relation between emotion and time (e.g., Fugate et al., 2002; Giæver, 2009a;
Smollan et al., 2010). Finally, some authors aim to build new theories by integrat-
ing different perspectives, such as psychodynamics (e.g., Carr, 2001) or psycho-
analytics (e.g., Antonacopoulou & Gabriel, 2001), offering new approaches (e.g.,
Balogun et al., 2010; Kiefer, 2002; Liu & Perrewé, 2005), creating new concepts
such as emotional balancing (Huy, 2002), or new theories such as the multilevel
theory of emotion and change (Huy, 1999).
What many of these investigations have in common is that they are grounded on
appraisal theories of emotions (e.g., Fugate, Kinicki, & Prussia, 2008; Giæver, 2009a;
Giæver & Hellesø, 2010; Huy, 2005; Kiefer, 2005; Liu & Perrewé, 2005), especially
those that analyze the antecedents and consequences of emotions (e.g., Avey et al.,
2008; Bartunek et al., 2006; Fugate et al., 2008; Huy, 2005; Kiefer, 2005; Lines et al.,
2009; Lines et al., 2010; Seo et al., 2007; Smollan, 2006; Stam & Stanton, 2010;
Szabla, 2007). Affective events theory has emerged as the main theoretical focus for
these studies (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996).
Affective events have been described in the work context as incidents, the conse-
quences of the interaction between employees and their working environment that
stimulates the individual assessment processes, triggering an emotional experience
(Basch & Fisher, 2000; Bisquerra, 2009). For example, when a person is excited about
a recent promotion, the promotion would be the work event that triggers the emotion
of excitement.
Research into work events as elicitors of emotions during change is not very com-
mon in the literature. Three categories of events can trigger negative emotions during
change: issues relating to working conditions, issues relating to personal status, and
organizational issues (e.g., acts of management and the values and fairness of the orga-
nization; Kiefer, 2005). The present research would fall into Kiefer’s “organizational
issues” category, as HRMs report their leaders’ behavior during a change process. In
the same category, change agents’ actions and managers’ transformational leadership
behavior have been demonstrated to be antecedents of emotions during change in
Huy’s (2005) and Seo et al.’s (2007) research, respectively.
We decided to focus on the direct leader because, as the closest manager this is the
one with whom workers spend more time; hence, this is the manager who most fre-
quently and most intensely influences them.
Agote et al. 39
A pattern of leader behavior that draws upon and promotes both positive psychological
capacities and a positive ethical climate, to foster greater self-awareness, an internalized
moral perspective, balanced processing of information, and relational transparency on the
part of leaders working with followers, fostering positive self-development. (p. 94)
This definition reflects the four underlying dimensions of the construct of AL (i.e.,
balanced processing, internalized moral perspective, relational transparency, and self-
awareness) that have been generally accepted following its empirical validation
(Walumbwa et al., 2008).
According to Gooty, Connelly, Griffith, and Gupta’s (2010) literature review on
leadership, affects and emotions are deeply intertwined with the process of leading,
leader´s outcomes, and follower´s outcomes. In fact, Avolio et al. (2004) presented a
framework in which they suggested that emotions could be a key variable in explain-
ing the process by which authentic leaders influence followers’ outcomes.
When trying to understand how and why emotions arise, most researchers base
their proposals on Lazarus’s (1991) appraisal theory of emotions, as did Weiss and
Cropanzano (1996) in developing affective events theory, a theory of emotions at
work. The appraisal theory of emotions considers these to be specific reactions to
events, indicating the importance of the episode to the individual. However, the stimu-
lus that activates the appraisal process does not need literally to be an event; it can also
be a stable feature that is salient (Elfenbein, 2007). As previously mentioned, events
related to interactions with coworkers, customers, and supervisors are among those
that have the greatest emotional impact on workers, with leaders’ behavior looming
particularly large (Elfenbein, 2007). Therefore, leaders’ behavior can be the event that
activates the appraisal process, giving rise to emotional experiences.
AL is a complex leadership style that involves the enactment of several distinct types
of behavior that together constitute an internally consistent gestalt. At the basic level,
however, it can be contrasted with an autocratic, command-and-control style by which
leaders solicit little input from their followers and show little concern for followers’
well-being, focusing exclusively on organizational-level objectives without regard for
how decisions affect those working in the organization. Autocratic leadership based on
40 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 52(1)
Espedal, and Johansen (2005), Søresen and Hasle (2009), Kelloway, Turner, Barling,
and Loughlin (2013), and Zhu, Newman, Miao, and Hooke (2013). It will be used in
this study.
Trust in the leader is considered a relevant factor for the successful implementation
of organizational changes (Oreg, 2006; Søresen & Hasle, 2009; Zhu, May, & Avolio,
2004) because it is considered crucial for getting individuals to work toward a com-
mon goal (Dirks, 2000), especially under high levels of perceived uncertainty.
Moreover, trust in the leader is also considered a fundamental element in the effective-
ness of leadership (Bass, 1990). This idea is supported by Dirks and Ferrin’s (2001,
2002) meta-analysis, in which they found that leadership style can increase trust in the
leader, which is in turn associated with attitudes, perceptions, and important organiza-
tional outcomes such as organizational citizenship behavior, job performance, job sat-
isfaction, organizational commitment, or intention to quit. Based also on past research
into trust, Schoorman, Mayer, and Davis (2007) considered the study of the relation-
ship between trust and emotions, a very interesting area of research. In response to this
call, Ballinger, Schoorman, and Lehman (2009) demonstrated that work group mem-
bers’ affective reactions to the departure of a leader were partly based on the quality of
the relationship they had with the leader. These affective reactions influenced group
members’ trust judgments of the new leader, unless they had access to previously
formed judgments about the leader’s ability. Yet the role of trust and emotions in lead-
ing and following is underresearched (Gooty et al., 2010).
A leader’s trustworthiness is based on followers’ expectations about the leader’s
future behavior, more specifically that the leader will not behave in ways that threaten
followers’ interests (Rousseau et al., 1998). These expectations, in turn, are based on
information from past experiences regarding the leader’s fundamental attributes of
ability, integrity, and benevolence. The trust construct, however, is also forward look-
ing in the sense that highly trusted leaders are expected to behave competently, with
integrity, and in ways that do not harm followers’ interests in future situations. In a
change context that is characterized by high levels of outcome uncertainty and ambi-
guity, trust is likely to be at the forefront of followers’ concerns, and may act as a core
determinant of how change recipients react emotionally. Because highly trusted lead-
ers are considered to be follower oriented and expected to take into account how fol-
lowers are affected by change(s), they are unlikely to make decisions that threaten
important values held by followers. As value relevance is a core determinant of the
appraisal process underlying emotional reactions (Lazarus, 1991), we expect that this
perceived benevolence of trusted leaders makes them better able to avoid producing
negative emotions and to foster the experience of positive emotions during change.
The expectation of leader integrity inherent in trust will further reduce the likelihood
of experiencing negative emotions and foster the experience of positive emotions.
Moreover, mere interaction with a trusted leader can engender positive emotions
unmediated by cognitive considerations like those outlined above. In the presence of
trusted individuals, people tend to experience feelings of interpersonal warmth, calm,
and hope (Jones & George, 1998). Most likely, these emotional reactions are mediated
by the low levels of threat experienced when a person is in contact with highly trusted
42 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 52(1)
individuals. The experience of threat and the absence of threat are fundamental for our
understanding of emotional processes and the ecological function of human emotions
(Lazarus, 1991). In contrast, in the presence of distrusted persons, feelings of anxiety
are likely to emerge, especially when individuals are highly dependent on the person
being distrusted, as is often the case in leader–follower relationships. Hence, we
propose:
Hypothesis 2a: Trust in the leader is positively related to the experience of positive
emotions during organizational change.
Hypothesis 2b: Trust in the leader is negatively related to the experience of nega-
tive emotions during organizational change.
In their proposed framework, Avolio et al. (2004) posited that identification, trust,
and emotions could be the processes by which authentic leaders exert their influence
on followers’ attitudes and behavior. Since then, the relationship between AL, trust in
the leader, and various followers’ attitudes and behavior has been successfully
researched (Peus, Wesche, Streicher, Braun, & Frey, 2012). It has been empirically
confirmed, for example, that trust mediates the relationship between AL and
Agote et al. 43
Relational transparency
Positive
emotions
Internalized moral perspective Authentic
leadership Trust
Balanced processing perception
Negative
Self awareness emotions
performance (Clapp-Smith et al., 2009), voice behavior (Wong & Cummings, 2009),
and work engagement (Hassan & Ahmed, 2011; Wong et al., 2010). These results
imply that trust might also mediate the relation between AL and followers’ emotions.
In fact, Avolio et al. (2004) suggested there could also be a relation between AL, trust,
and positive emotions, although they did not present an explicit hypothesis. According
to Clapp-Smith et al. (2009) “followers may be more willing to place trust in the
leader’s future actions because they can use past experiences to predict future
responses” (p. 232). In other words, authentic leaders make employees feel more com-
fortable and secure about the leader’s future behavior. Positive past behavior provides
behavior predictability, which “seems to be a particularly relevant facet of trust in the
examination of its relation with authentic leadership” (Peus et al., 2012, p. 335).
Moreover, trust enables followers to perceive the leader’s actions as genuine (Zhu
et al., 2013). In this way, trust helps followers judge the leader in a favorable light,
favoring in turn the experience of more positive emotions and less negative emotions.
As authentic leaders are expected to behave in a manner perceived as trustworthy, fol-
lowers are expected to demonstrate more positive emotions and less negative emo-
tions. Therefore, we propose:
Hypothesis 4a: The relationship between the perception of AL behavior and the
experience of positive emotions is mediated by the level of trust in the leader.
Hypothesis 4b: The relationship between the perception of AL behavior and the
experience of negative emotions is mediated by the level of trust in the leader.
Research Method
Sample Framing and Data Collection
A multiorganizational approach for data gathering was chosen because we decided to
focus our attention on various HRMs’ experience during organizational changes. The
research focused on Spanish companies with more than 50 employees, and to identify
these companies, the database SABI was used.1
44 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 52(1)
Multivariate Analysis
Structural equation modeling (SEM) based on partial least squares (PLS) is used to
test the hypotheses of the research due to the characteristics of the model and sample.
In comparison with the covariance-based approach (an alternative SEM approach),
PLS avoids two important problems: those related to nonunique or otherwise improper
solutions (Fornell & Bookstein, 1982) and those related to the use of small data sam-
ples (Fornell, 1982). Thus, PLS can be a powerful analysis method due to its minimum
requirements in terms of variable measurement scales, sample size, and residual distri-
bution (Chin, Marcolin, & Newsted, 2003).
The sample size obtained is large enough to perform a statistical study based on a
PLS approach to SEM by means of PLS-Graph software (Chin et al., 2003; Chin &
Frye, 2003). Since all the constructs of the model are reflective in nature, the largest
number of antecedent constructs leading to an endogenous construct in the structural
model will determine the minimum sample size required—in our case, 50 responses
for the first-order model and 20 for the second-order model.
PLS analysis consists of two consecutive stages, although measurement and struc-
tural parameters are concomitantly estimated (Barclay, Higgins, & Thompson, 1995).
First, the measurement model must be evaluated to assess its validity (i.e., that it really
measures what we want to measure) and reliability (i.e., that it does so in a stable,
consistent way). This will guarantee that the theoretical concepts are properly mea-
sured by the variables observed. Afterward, structural model evaluation can take place
in order to analyze the weight and extent of relations between constructs and to test the
research hypotheses.
Results
Measurement Model Evaluation
Since AL perception is a second-order construct, it is necessary to create a first-order
model and make all the basic checks (in the case of reflective constructs, individual
item reliability, construct reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity
46 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 52(1)
have to be tested). In all cases, the results of the first-order model are satisfactory
(results of the first-order measurement model evaluation in Appendix B).
As far as individual item reliability is concerned, a rule of thumb is to accept items
with loadings of 0.707 or more, which implies more shared variance between the con-
struct and its measures than error variance (Barclay et al., 1995; Carmines & Zeller,
1979). As can be seen in Appendix B, Part I, indicator loadings are greater than 0.707,
with three exceptions: TRUST6 (loading: 0.6815), POSEMO1 (positive emotions;
loading: 0.6690), and NEGEMO3 (negative emotions; loading: 0.6256). According to
Barclay et al. (1995), loadings above 0.5 and 0.6 are also acceptable in early stages of
scale development as is the case for this construct. Thus, all the indicators proposed
have been retained in the research.
Construct reliability or internal consistency refers to the extent to which all the
indicators of a specific construct measure the same latent variable. If this were to be
true, all the indicators making up the construct should be highly correlated. For this to
be tested, composite reliability (ρc) has been calculated. According to Nunnally
(1978), a value of 0.70 constitutes a benchmark for modest reliability in early stages
of research, whereas later on, values higher than 0.80 would be preferable. As can be
observed in Appendix B, Part I, all constructs of the research have a composite reli-
ability over 0.8. Hence, internal consistency is adequate.
Convergent validity is assessed by means of the so-called average variance extracted
(AVE). This measure was created by Fornell and Larcker in 1981, and it provides the
amount of variance that a latent variable captures from its indicators, relative to the
amount due to measurement error. It is recommended that AVE should be greater than
0.50, this meaning that 50% or more of the variance of the construct is due to its own
indicators. As can be seen in Appendix B, Part I, this is the case in all constructs of the
research.
Finally, discriminant validity indicates the extent to which a given construct is dif-
ferent from other constructs (i.e., the extent to which the constructs making up the
research model really measure different things). For this to be true, a construct should
share more variance with its measures than it shares with other constructs of the model
(Fornell & Larcker, 1981). In other words, AVE should be greater than the variance
shared between the construct and other constructs (i.e., the squared correlation between
two constructs). Once the correlation matrix is obtained, it is easier to calculate the
root value of AVE for each construct (this would be the diagonal of the correlation
matrix) and to compare it with the correlations obtained. For adequate discriminant
validity, the diagonal elements (i.e., the root values of AVE) should be greater than the
off-diagonal elements in the corresponding rows and columns. This is exactly the case
in our research (see Appendix B, Part II).
Once the first-order measurement model has been checked, the same has to be done
for the second-order model. Therefore, the second-order model was created and the
measurement model evaluated. Following the same criteria as before, we satisfactorily
checked individual item reliability, construct reliability, convergent validity, and dis-
criminant validity (results of the second-order measurement model evaluation in
Appendix C).
Agote et al. 47
In particular, and as far as item reliability is concerned, loadings are higher than
0.707 in all cases, with the exception of three indicators: TRUST6 (loading: 0.6803),
POSEMO1 (loading: 0.6548), and NEGEMO3 (loading: 0.6189; see Appendix C, Part
I). As stated earlier, and according to Barclay et al. (1995), loadings above 0.5 and 0.6
are also acceptable in early stages of scale development as is the case for this con-
struct. Thus, all the indicators proposed have been retained.
With regard to construct reliability, composite reliability (ρc) is above 0.8 in all cases.
And for convergent validity, AVE is higher than 0.5 in all cases. Therefore, both tests are
satisfactory (see Appendix C, Part I). Finally, and regarding discriminant validity, this test
is also acceptable (i.e., diagonal elements in the correlation matrix are larger than off-
diagonal elements in the corresponding rows and columns; see Appendix C, Part II).
Mediation Test
Two different approaches can be used for mediation testing: the traditional approach
and the Sobel test. Following the traditional approach, two models have to be run for
mediation to be tested. In the first model, the mediator variable should be excluded
(trust) and the independent (AL) and dependent (positive and negative emotions) vari-
ables should be linked to check that the relations between the exogenous variable and
the endogenous variables are significant.
48 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 52(1)
Table 1. Influence of Trust on Positive and Negative Emotions, and of Authentic Leadership
on Trust, Positive, and Negative Emotions.
Endogenous Authentic Total amount of variance Cross-validated
construct Parameter Trust leadership explained (R2) redundancy (Q2)
Note. Goodness-of-fit (GOF) = 0.5. GOF is the square root of (mean of average variance extracted values × mean of R2
values). The value of GOF has to be between 0 and 1.
†p < .1. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (based on t , one-tailed test).
499
0.499***
30.09%
0.144 Positive
7.29% emotions
0.725***
Authentic 52.56% 37.38%
leadership Trust
perception
52.56% -0.428*** Negative
Relational transparency 23.03% emotions
Internalized moral perspective
Balanced processing 30.00%
Self-awareness
-0.151
6.98%
As shown in Table 2, the first condition for mediation to exist is fully satisfied as
AL exerts a significant impact on emotions.
The second is a model in which all the variables are included. In fact, this is the
model analyzed in the previous section (see Table 1). This model is intended to check
that the relation between the mediator variable (trust) and the endogenous variable
(positive and negative emotions) is significant. The relationship between trust and
positive emotions is not statistically significant. Therefore, trust does not mediate the
relation between AL and positive emotions, and so Hypothesis 4a cannot be accepted.
However, the relation between trust and negative emotions is statistically significant,
satisfying the second condition established for mediation to exist.
Agote et al. 49
The third condition for mediation is that the path value (β) of the relation between
the exogenous variable (AL) and the endogenous variable (negative emotions) in the
complete model should be lower than that in the model without mediators (see Table 2).
The association between AL and negative emotions increases from −0.151 in the com-
plete model to −0.464 in the model without mediators. And since the relation between
these two constructs in the complete model is nonsignificant, trust fully mediates the
relation between AL and negative emotions. Therefore, Hypothesis 4b is accepted.
These mediation results have also been confirmed by means of the Sobel test. As a
result of this test, the values of the “z” parameter were compared with a standard nor-
mal distribution2 (Preacher & Hayes, 2004) to establish statistical significance.
In the case of negative emotions, the “z” value is significant. Hence, mediation
exists, but it is not significant with regard to positive emotions, and so trust does not
mediate the relation between AL perception and positive emotions (zAL-TRUST-POSEMO =
1.169; and zAL-TRUST-NEGEMO = 3.426).
For the final mediation, Table 3 shows the total effect of AL on emotions as a sum
of the direct and indirect effects. As can be seen, the effect of AL on positive and nega-
tive emotions is quite different. AL has a positive and mainly direct effect on positive
emotions, while it has a negative and mainly indirect effect on negative emotions
through trust.
Table 3. Total Effect of Authentic Leadership on Positive and Negative Emotions.
leader, which is in line with previous results, as indicated by Gardner, Cogliser, Davis,
and Dickens (2011). These authors published a literature review on AL on December
31, 2010, in which they indicated that the three articles in the review that empirically
studied this relationship supported the positive influence of AL on trust in the leader.
Since then, more articles supporting this relation have been published (e.g., Hassan &
Ahmed, 2011; Zamahani et al., 2011). However, there is still more theoretical than
empirical support for this relation.
Followers’ trust in their organizational leaders has become an important issue
(Norman et al., 2010), and managers should be aware of the important consequences
their behavior has on employees’ level of trust. If managers lie, if they act unfairly, if
they do not keep their word, if their decisions are biased by their own interests or pres-
sures from others and employees know it, they will expect managers to act the same
way in the future. This behavior is expected to destroy trust: Employees will not be
willing to accept further vulnerability based on positive expectations of the managers’
behavior because they will have no positive expectations. Conversely, since trust is
fundamental for the effectiveness of leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1990; Dirks & Ferrin,
2001, 2002) and AL builds trust, managers should be sincere and honest, maintain
high moral values, and act objectively when making decisions if they want employees
to trust them.
Moreover, we found that AL perception was also significantly and positively related
to the experience of positive emotions. Following Lazarus’s (1991) appraisal theory of
emotions, the existence of a direct relationship between leaders’ AL behavior and posi-
tive emotions reveal the importance that AL behavior has for HRMs. However, it
seems that not all AL dimensions have the same influence on positive emotions.
Although it was not our primary intention, further analyses showed that internalized
moral perspective is the only AL dimension that is significantly related to positive
emotions. Therefore, this study reveals that direct boss’ behavior based on his or her
core values and congruency with his or her thoughts especially matters to employees,
triggering positive emotional reactions. Curiously, it was the lack of ethical conduct of
today’s leaders that called for a new, genuine, values-based leadership (Gardner et al.,
2011), giving rise to AL. Considering the results, it seems that it is precisely this moral
perspective that most influences HRMs’ positive emotions. This fact makes us think
that AL could be more tightly linked to followers’ positive emotions than other leader-
ship styles such as charismatic, transformational, or transactional types. Independent
research has found positive results relating transactional, transformational, and charis-
matic leadership to followers’ emotions, especially to positive emotions. However, it
would be interesting to compare these relations in a single research to determine if
Agote et al. 51
there is any leadership style that can better explain followers’ positive and/or negative
emotions.
Additionally, it was found that trust mediates the relation between AL perception
and negative emotions. AL behavior seems to be positively related to trust in the
leader, which in turn is negatively related to the experience of negative emotions.
Conversely, and contrary to predictions, trust does not seem to contribute to an expla-
nation of positive emotions, nor does it mediate the relation between AL and positive
emotions. These results point out that the relation between AL, trust, positive emo-
tions, and negative emotions is quite complex and needs further research. An explana-
tion for the results obtained might lie in the consideration of trust as dynamic (Rousseau
et al., 1998), which is developed over time, mainly as a response to leaders’ behavior.
In addition, as suggested by Gooty et al. (2010), besides cognitive influences, emo-
tions could also influence the level of trust. As the affect-as-information theory
(Forgas, 1995, 2002) proposes, positive emotions might be used as information, and
therefore help build trust, while negative emotions might destroy it. However, given a
concrete time and specific situation (as in the case of the present study), the level of
trust that a follower has in the leader might act as a filter to interpret the leader’s
behavior, affecting in turn the follower’s emotions. Trust in the leader might help inter-
pret the leader’s behavior in a positive way, even giving the leader the benefit of the
doubt when negative behavior (such as injustice or unfairness) are perceived. On the
other hand, lack of trust might have negative consequences through a negative inter-
pretation of the leader’s behavior due to suspicion and skepticism. In order to confirm
this proposal, new longitudinal research is needed that makes it possible to capture the
evolution of trust and the experience of positive and negative emotions as responses to
leadership behavior.
The results obtained in this article contribute to theory in different ways. For
instance, it helps explain why emotions occur during organizational change processes
by reinforcing the affective events theory and enriching the literature on emotions.
Moreover, the article shows that leaders’ behavior is a relevant variable to understand
employees’ emotions at work and trust building, contributing to the literature on lead-
ership, emotions, and trust. And it also contributes to the literature on trust by demon-
strating that trust can be a relevant mediating variable.
Additionally, in light of the results obtained and the discussion presented above, we
would like to offer some managerial advice.
First, we consider that, given the benefits of AL, it would be advisable to develop
some specific actions promoted by management and addressed to HRMs with the
purpose of explaining them the foundations of this leadership style, its importance and
benefits, and to help them engage in AL behavior. Among these actions, training pro-
grams could be delivered. For instance, a workshop on AL could be organized with the
participation of HRMs belonging to different companies.
A very important issue to be taken into account is that internalized moral perspec-
tive is the only AL dimension that is significantly related to positive emotions. It
means that, in the case of HRMs, their behavior has to be congruent with their own
core values and thoughts. Therefore, it would be interesting to focus the training
52 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 52(1)
Appendix A
Constructs, Codes, and Measures
Constructs Codes Measures
Authentic leadershipa AL How frequently each of the following statement
(AL; second order) fits your direct boss’(s) leadership style
during the change process? (1 = not at all, 5 =
frequently, if not always) My direct boss . . .
AL relational transparency ALTRANS
AL internalized moral ALMORAL1 Demonstrated beliefs that were consistent
perspective with actions
AL balanced processing ALBALAN3 Listened carefully to different points of view
before coming to conclusions
AL self-awareness ALAWARE1 Sought feedback to improve interactions with
others
Trust TRUST To what extent do you agree with each of the
following statements referred to your trust in
your direct boss during the change process?
(1 = I totally disagree, 5 = I totally agree)
TRUST1 My direct boss kept my interests in mind
when making decisions.
TRUST2 I would have been willing to let my direct
boss have complete control over my future
in this company.
TRUST3 If my direct boss would have asked why a
problem occurred, I would have spoken
freely even if I was partly to blame.
TRUST4 I felt comfortable being creative because
my direct boss accepted that sometimes
creative solutions do not work.
TRUST5 Increasing my vulnerability to criticism by my
direct boss would have been a mistake.
TRUST6 Although I would have had my way, I would
not have prevented my supervisor from
having any influence over decisions that
were important to me.
(continued)
Agote et al. 55
Appendix A (continued)
aOnly the publication of three sample items to measure AL behavior was allowed by the authors.
Appendix B
First-Order Measurement Model Evaluation
Part I
Item Reliability, Construct Reliability, and Convergent Validity.
Appendix B (continued)
Note. AVE = average variance extracted; ALTRANS = authentic leadership relational transparency;
ALMORAL = authentic leadership internalized moral perspective; ALBALAN = authentic leadership
balanced processing; ALAWARE = authentic leadership self-awareness; POSEMO = positive emotion;
NEGEMO = negative emotion. For item reliability, loadings should be above 0.707 or close to this limit.
Loadings above 0.6 were accepted. For construct reliability, composite reliability should be above 0.7 in
early stages of investigation. And for convergent validity, AVE ratio should be above 0.5.
Agote et al. 57
Part II
Discriminant Validity.
Appendix C
Second-Order Measurement Model Results
Part I
Constructs Composite
and measures Loading reliability AVE
AL 0.944 0.808
ALTRANS 0.9132
ALMORAL 0.8899
ALBALAN 0.8698
ALAWARE 0.9224
TRUST 0.869 0.572
TRUST1 0.8082
TRUST2 0.7061
TRUST3 0.7269
TRUST4 0.8465
TRUST6 0.6803
POSEMO 0.901 0.566
POSEMO1 0.6548
POSEMO2 0.7304
POSEMO3 0.7833
POSEMO4 0.7746
POSEMO5 0.8137
(continued)
58 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 52(1)
Appendix C (continued)
Constructs Composite
and measures Loading reliability AVE
POSEMO6 0.7511
POSEMO7 0.7493
NEGEMO 0.902 0.569
NEGEMO2 0.7380
NEGEMO3 0.6189
NEGEMO4 0.7556
NEGEMO5 0.8365
NEGEMO6 0.8060
NEGEMO7 0.7490
NEGEMO8 0.7558
Note. AVE = average variance extracted; ALTRANS = authentic leadership relational transparency;
ALMORAL = authentic leadership internalized moral perspective; ALBALAN = authentic leadership
balanced processing; ALAWARE = authentic leadership self-awareness; POSEMO = positive emotion;
NEGEMO = negative emotion. For item reliability, loadings should be above 0.707 or close to this limit.
Loadings above 0.6 were accepted. For construct reliability, composite reliability should be above 0.7
in early stages of research. And for convergent validity, AVE ratio should be above 0.5 (Source: The
author).
Part II
Discriminant Validity.
Note. AL = authentic leadership; POSEMO = positive emotion; NEGEMO = negative emotion. Diagonal
elements (values in parentheses) are the square root of the variance shared between the constructs and
their measures, relative to the amount due to measure error (average variance extracted). Off-diagonal
elements are the correlations among constructs. For discriminant validity, diagonal elements should be
larger than off-diagonal elements in the corresponding rows and columns.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Agote et al. 59
Notes
1. SABI: Sistema de Análisis de Balances Ibéricos (Iberian System of Balance Sheet
Analysis). Database with general information (address, telephone, industry, number of
employees, etc.) and annual accounts of Spanish and Portuguese firms.
2. z(0.1) = 1.282; z(0.05) = 1.645; z(0.01) = 2.327; z(0.001) = 3.08.
References
Alfes, K., Truss, C., & Gill, J. (2010). The HR manager as change agent: Evidence from the
public sector. Journal of Change Management, 10, 109-127.
Antonacopoulou, E. P., & Gabriel, Y. (2001). Emotion, learning and organizational change:
Towards an integration of psychoanalytic and other perspectives. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 14, 435-451.
Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Luthans, F. (2008). Can positive employees help positive orga-
nizational change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant attitudes and
behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 48-70.
Avolio, B. J. (2010). Bringing authentic leadership into focus. Retrieved from http://www.mlq.
com.au/docs/feat/AvolioBJ-2010.pdf
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2007). Authentic Leadership Questionnaire
(ALQ–Version 1 Rater). Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden.
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 follower attitudes and
behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801-823.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research,
and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449.
Avolio, B. J., & Wernsing, T. S. (2008). Practicing authentic leadership. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.),
Positive psychology: Exploring the best in people (pp. 147-165). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Ballinger, G. A., Schoorman, F. D., & Lehman, D. W. (2009). Will you trust your new
boss? The role of affective reactions to leadership succession. Leadership Quarterly,
20, 219-232.
Balogun, J. C., Bartunek, J. M., & Do, B. (2010, August). Uncovering relationships and shared
emotion beneath senior managers’ resistance to strategic change. Academy of Management:
Proceedings, 1-6. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2010.54493451
Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least square (PLS) approach
to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology
Studies, 2, 285-309.
Bartunek, J. M., Balogun, J., & Do, B. (2011). Considering planned change anew: Stretching
large group interventions strategically, emotionally, and meaningfully. Academy of
Management Annals, 5, 1-52.
Bartunek, J. M., Rousseau, D. M., Rudolph, J. W., & Depalma, J. A. (2006). On the receiving
end: Sensemaking, emotion, and assessments of an organizational change initiated by oth-
ers. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42, 182-206.
Basch, J., & Fisher, C. D. (2000). Affective events-emotions matrix: A classification of work
events and associated emotions. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. E. J. Härtel, & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.),
Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 36-48). Westport, CT:
Quorum Books.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the
vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-31.
60 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 52(1)
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). Retrieved
from http://www.mindgarden.com/16-multifactor-leadership-questionnaire
Bisquerra, R. (2009). Psicopedagogía de las emociones [Psychopedagogy of emotions].
Retrieved from http://www.sintesis.com/data/indices/9788497566261.pdf
Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual
Review of Psychology, 53, 279-307.
Brockner, J., Konovsky, M. A., Cooper-Schneider, R., Folger, R., Martin, C., & Bies, R. J.
(1994). Interactive effects of procedural justice and outcome negativity on victims and
survivors of job loss. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 397-409.
Caldwell, R. (2001). Champions, adapters, consultants and synergists: The new change agents
in HRM. Human Resource Management Journal, 11, 39-52.
Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment (Sage University Paper
Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, No. 07-017). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Carr, A. (2001). Understanding emotion and emotionality in a process of change. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 14, 421-436.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G.
A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295-336). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chin, W. W., & Frye, T. (2003). PLS-Graph (Version 3.00, Build 1017) [Computer software].
Houston, TX: University of Houston.
Chin, W. W., & Gopal, A. (1995). Adoption intention in GSS: Relative importance of beliefs.
Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 26, 42-63.
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable mod-
eling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from Monte Carlo simulation study
and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research, 14, 189-217.
Clapp-Smith, R., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Avey, J. B. (2009). Authentic leadership and positive
psychological capital. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15, 227-240.
Dickson, M. W., Aditya, R. N., & Chokar, J. S. (2000). Definition and interpretation in cross-
cultural organizational culture research: Some pointers from the GLOBE research program.
In N. N. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderon, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The handbook of organizational
culture and climate (pp. 447-464). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dirks, K. T. (2000). Trust in leadership and team performance: Evidence from NCAA basket-
ball. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 1004-1012.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization
Science, 12, 450-467.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implica-
tions for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611-628.
Elfenbein, H. A. (2007). Emotion in organizations: A review and theoretical integration.
Academy of Management Annals, 1, 315-386.
Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. Akron, OH: University of Akron.
Fiebig, G. V., & Kramer, M. W. (1998). A framework for the study of emotions in organiza-
tional contexts. Management Communication Quarterly, 11, 536-572.
Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological
Bulletin, 117, 39-66.
Forgas, J. P. (2002). Feeling and doing: Affective influences on interpersonal behavior.
Psychological Inquiry, 13, 1-28.
Fornell, C. (1982). A second generation of multivariate analysis: An overview. In C. Fornell
(Ed.), A second generation of multivariate analysis (pp. 1-21). New York, NY: Praeger.
Agote et al. 61
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equationg models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. L. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS
applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 440-452.
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Prussia, G. E. (2008). Employee coping with organizational
change: An examination of alternative theoretical perspectives and models. Personnel
Psychology, 61, 1-36.
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Scheck, C. L. (2002). Coping with an organizational merger over
four stages. Personnel Psychology, 55, 905-928.
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (Eds.). (2005). Authentic leadership theory
and practice: Origins, effects and development. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic leadership: A
review of the literature and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1120-1145.
Geisser, S. (1975). The predictive sample reuse method with applications. Journal of the
American Statistical Association, 70, 320-328.
Giæver, F. (2009a). Looking forwards and back: Exploring anticipative versus retrospective
emotional change-experiences. Journal of Change Management, 9, 419-434.
Giæver, F. (2009b). Understanding the emotional experience of organizational change. In P. O.
Saksvik (Ed.), Prerequisites for healthy organizational change (pp. 33-40). Beijing, China:
Bentham Books.
Giæver, F., & Hellesø, R. (2010). Negative experiences of organizational change from an emo-
tions perspective: A qualitative study of the Norwegian nursing sector. Nordic Psychology,
62, 37-52.
Gillespie, N. (2003). Measuring trust in working relationships: The behavioral trust inventory.
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Melbourne Business School, University of Melbourne.
Gooty, J., Connelly, S., Griffith, J., & Gupta, A. (2010). Leadership, affect and emotions: A
state of the science review. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 979-1004.
Hassan, A., & Ahmed, F. (2011). Authentic leadership, trust and work engagement. World
Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 80, 750-756.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of
the minds (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G., & Peterson, M. F. (2000). Culture, national values and organizational practices.
In N. N. Ashkanas, C. Wilderon, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The handbook of organizational
culture and climate (pp. 401-416). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Huy, Q. N. (1999). Emotional capability, emotional intelligence, and radical change. Academy
of Management Review, 24, 325-345.
Huy, Q. N. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The
contribution of middle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 31-69.
Huy, Q. N. (2005). Emotional filtering in strategic change. Fontainebleu, France: INSEAD.
Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for
cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23, 531-546.
Kelloway, E. K., Turner, N., Barling, J., & Loughlin, C. (2013). Transformational leadership
and employee psychological well-being: The mediating role of employee trust in leader-
ship. Work & Stress, 26, 39-55.
Kiefer, T. (2002). Understanding the emotional experience of organizational change: Evidence
from a merger. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4, 39-61.
Kiefer, T. (2005). Feeling bad: Antecedents and consequences of negative emotions in ongoing
change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 875-897.
62 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 52(1)
Konovsky, M. A. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organiza-
tions. Journal of Management, 26, 489-511.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lazarus, R. S. (2003). Does the positive psychology movement have legs? Psychological
Inquiry, 14, 93-109.
Lind, E. A., Kulik, C. T., Ambrose, M., & De Vera Park, M. V. (1993). Individual and corporate
dispute resolution: Using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 38, 224-251.
Lines, R., Sáenz, J., & Aramburu, N. (2010, August). Thinking about future job characteristics,
emotional reactions, and resistance to change. Paper presented at the 30th SMS Annual
International Conference. Retrieved from http://rome.strategicmanagement.net/pdf/Rome_
program.pdf
Lines, R., Sáenz, J., Aramburu, N., & Rivera, O. (2009, October). An emotion based account
of strategy implementation success. Paper presented at the 29th SMS Annual International
Conference. Retrieved from http://dc.strategicmanagement.net/pdf/DC_Program_Web%20
version.pdf
Lines, R., Selart, M., Espedal, B., & Johansen, S. (2005). The production of trust during organi-
zational change. Journal of Change Management, 5, 221-245.
Liu, Y., & Perrewé, P. L. (2005). Another look at the role of emotion in the organizational
change: A process model. Human Resource Management Review, 15, 263-280.
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership development. In K. S. Cameron, J.
E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 241-258). San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Mossholder, K. W., Settoon, R. P., Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2000). Emotion dur-
ing organizational transformations: An interactive model of survivor reactions. Group &
Organization Management, 25, 220-243.
Norman, S. M., Avolio, B. J., & Luthans, F. (2010). The impact of positivity and transparency
on trust in leaders and their perceived effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 350-364.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal
of Work & Organizational Psychology, 15, 73-101.
Peus, C., Wesche, J. S., Streicher, B., Braun, S., & Frey, D. (2012). Authentic leadership: An
empirical test of its antecedents, consequences, and mediating mechanisms. Journal of
Business Ethics, 107, 331-348.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects
in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36,
717-731.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A
cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393-404.
Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2000). A new look at national culture: Illustrative applications to
role stress and managerial behavior. In N. N. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderon, & M. F. Peterson
(Eds.), The handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 417-436). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2007). Cultural values in organisations: Insights for Europe.
European Journal of International Management, 1, 176-190.
Schoorman, F. D., & Ballinger, G. A. (2006). Leadership, trust and client service in veterinary
hospitals (Unpublished working paper). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational
trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32, 344-354.
Agote et al. 63
Seo, M.-G., Taylor, M. S., & Hill, N. S. (2007, August). The role of affect and leadership dur-
ing radical organizational change. Proceedings of the Academy of Management Annual
Meeting, USA, 1-6. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2007.26530920
Smollan, R. K. (2006). Minds, hearts and deeds: Cognitive, affective and behavioral responses
to change. Journal of Change Management, 6, 143-158.
Smollan, R. K., & Sayers, J. G. (2009). Organizational culture, change and emotions: A qualita-
tive study. Journal of Change Management, 9, 435-457.
Smollan, R. K., Sayers, J. G., & Matheny, J. A. (2010). Emotional responses to the speed, fre-
quency and timing of organizational change. Time & Society, 19, 28-53.
Søresen, O. H., & Hasle, P. (2009). The importance of trust in organizational change. In P. O.
Saksvik (Ed.), Prerequisites for healthy organizational change (pp. 10-20). Beijing, China:
Bentham Books.
Stam, K. R., & Stanton, J. M. (2010). Events, emotions, and technology: Examining acceptance
of workplace technology changes. Information Technology & People, 23, 23-53.
Stone, M. (1974). Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. Journal of
the Royal Statistical Society, 36, 111-147.
Szabla, D. B. (2007). A multidimensional view of resistance to organizational change: Exploring
cognitive, emotional, and intentional responses to planned change across perceived change
leadership strategies. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18, 525-558.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Turnbull, S. (2002). The planned and unintended emotions generated by a corporate change
program. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4, 22-38.
Ulrich, D. (1997). Human resource champions: The next agenda for adding value and deliver-
ing results. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Vince, R. (2006). Being taken over: Managers’ emotions and rationalizations during a company
takeover. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 343-365.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008).
Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of
Management, 34, 89-126.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion
of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 18, 1-74.
Wong, C. A., & Cummings, G. G. (2009). The influence of authentic leadership behaviors on
trust and work outcomes of health care staff. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3, 6-23.
Wong, C. A., Laschinger, H. K. S., & Cummings, G. G. (2010). Authentic leadership and
nurses’ voice behaviour and perceptions of care quality. Journal of Nursing Management,
18, 889-900.
Zamahani, M., Ghorbani, V., & Rezaei, F. (2011). Impact of authentic leadership and psy-
chological capital on followers’ trust and performance. Australian Journal of Basic and
Applied Sciences, 5, 658-667.
Zhu, W., May, D. R., & Avolio, B. J. (2004). The impact of ethical leadership behavior on
employee outcomes: The roles of psychological empowerment and authenticity. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11, 16-26.
Zhu, W., Newman, A., Miao, Q., & Hooke, A. (2013). Revisiting the mediating role of trust
in transformational leadership effects: Do different types of trust make a difference?
Leadership Quarterly, 24, 94-105.