DL 15.1.

13

CS 10.1.13

AC

Followers’ assessments of a leader’s authenticity: What factors affect how others deem a

leader to be authentic?

Dail Fields

1
 Leadership models have often focused on the leader as a pivotal actor, emphasizing

identification of leader attributes and behaviors that influence followers (Kouzes and Posner

1987; Meindl 1993). Groups of these behaviors tend to be labeled as a particular model, such as

transformational or authentic leadership. These models suggest that a set of behaviors

experienced on average by the followers of a leader will cause these followers to achieve

specified objectives or put forth additional efforts for an organization’s goals. The model labeled

authentic leadership suggests that leaders whose actions are perceived as consistent with his/her

own beliefs and values are likely to have positive influences on the behaviors and performance

of followers (Gardner, Cogliser, Davis and Dickens 2011). In theory, this leadership approach is

effective because followers may interpret authenticity as evidence of reliability. In other words,

followers may anticipate that more authentic leaders will be less likely to resort to face-saving or

other self-preservation tactics if and when things go awry (Gardner et al. 2011; House, Hanges,

Javidian, Dorfman and Gupta 2004; Fields, 2007).

A leader may be true to him or her ‘self’ and, accordingly, may thus judge that they are

being authentic. However, I argue in his chapter that unless a follower perceives that the

‘trueness of self’ being exhibited by a leader aligns with the follower’s knowledge of authentic

leadership traits - the leader does not exist authentically in their leadership. In other words, the

leader comes into being as authentic in the context of the follower relationship, and does so amid

a complex array of variables, such as the biases of the follower, the organizational context and

job role expectation, which are beyond the leader’s control. Referring to one’s self as the

barometer of authenticity is a necessary but not sufficient aspect of being perceived as an

authentic leader.

2
 A number of highly visible lapses in ethical judgment have led to greater public demand

for accountability of organizational leaders (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing and

Peterson 2008). Those leaders seen as not doing what they say may lose the trust of followers.

Authentic leadership theory suggests that when organizational leaders know and act upon their

true values and beliefs, employees’ recognize this quality and experience higher levels of well-

being and that in turn positively impacts follower performance (Walumba et al. 2008). While

authentic leadership has recently been the focus of numerous studies, the conceptual view that

leaders are people who are true to themselves has been discussed in leadership research for some

time (Gardner et al. 2011). For example, leader authenticity was discussed in the 1980’s in terms

similar to those used in more recent times referring to “the extent to which subordinates describe

their leader as accepting responsibility for actions, as being non-manipulating, and as

demonstrating a salience of self over role. In contrast, the inauthentic leader was viewed as one

who ‘passes the buck,’ blames others and circumstances for his/her errors, manipulates and uses

subordinates, and is engulfed in the bureaucratic role requirements of the position” (Gardner et

al. 2011, p. 1135).

Authenticity in a leader is seen to be informed by the ‘true’ self (Avolio and Gardner

2005) and has frequently been described in self referent terms (Eagly 2005). That is, authenticity

is defined as the extent to which leaders are self-aware and perceive that they are acting in

accord with their identity (Avolio and Gardner 2005; Chan, Hannah and Gardner 2005; Ladkin

and Taylor 2010). Sincerity is often described as involving interactions with others while

authenticity is described as more strictly self-reflective (Avolio and Gardner 2005).

Follower perceptions of a leader being authentic also focuses on assessments of how the

leader’s behaviors toward others, including followers, reflects the moral character of the leader

3
and the ethics inherent to the processes and choices directed by the leader (Bass and Steidlmeier

1999; Ladkin and Taylor 2010). Judgments about a person’s integrity are often based in the

premise that one cannot fake his or her underlying principles and values (Becker 1998). A

leader’s authenticity must be joined by integrity, defined as having personal values grounded in

morality, in order for the leader to be respected by followers and to influence follower actions.

Descriptions of authentic leadership also generally include a connection with moral leadership

(Ladkin and Taylor 2010).

Some recent efforts have led to the development of alternative measurement tools that

could be used to gauge the extent to which followers recognize certain attributes and form

conclusions about the extent of a leader’s authenticity (Neider and Schriesheim 2011). For

example, the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (Walumbwa et al. 2008) covers:

 Self-Awareness – which involves demonstrating an understanding of how a leader makes

meaning of the world and how that meaning-making process impacts the view of

himself/herself including understanding strengths and weaknesses. This includes gaining

insight into the self through exposure to others, and being cognizant of one’s impact on

other people;

 Relational Transparency – which includes the extent to which a leader presents his or her

true (as opposed to fake or distorted) self to others and promotes trust through openly

sharing information and expressions of thoughts and feelings while minimizing displays

of inappropriate emotions;

 Balanced Processing – which includes a leader’s tendency to show that he or she

objectively analyzes all relevant data before coming to a decision and is willing to solicit

views that challenge deeply held positions; and

4
  Internalized Moral Perspective – which refers to internalized self-regulation that is

guided by moral standards and values instead of group, organizational or societal

pressures and that results in behavior consistent with these values.

As other studies have noted, such assessments rely on assumptions that ratings of

leadership behaviors reflect each follower’s personal experience with the actual behaviors of the

leader (Herold and Fields 2004; London and Smither 1995). A related assumption is that the

respondents can also distinguish between different behaviors of the leader and that feedback will

affect the leader’s behaviors (Lord and Emrich 2001). There is an underlying assumption

informing much of the authentic leadership literature that knowing one’s ‘true self’ and acting

from that self-referential place will automatically be communicated to followers who will view

the leader as authentic (Ladkin and Taylor 2010). It is not apparent how self-referent aspects of a

leader and the leader's underlying moral values (integrity) are communicated or recognized by

followers (Fields 2007). Internal states of a person are frequently not apparent or interpretable to

observers. However, the locus of authentic leadership rests on the followers’ perceptions of the

authenticity of a leader and these perceptions are as or more important to leadership than the self-

view and thoughts of the leader (Ladkin and Taylor 2010).

But what if followers make judgments about leader authenticity based on information and

influences over which the leader has very limited control? For example, alternative models of

leader perception suggest that employee/follower views of a leader may be socially constructed

through efforts of organizational members to make sense of the processes within organizations

(Lamertz 2002; Meindl 1993; Weick 1993). Leadership may be a socially constructed rationale

providing an appealing explanation for organizational results (Meindl, Ehrlich and Dukerich

1985; Pfeffer and Salancik 1978). Many believe that regardless of the leader’s internal self,

5
leadership is inherently a social process. Podolny, Rakesh Khurana and Hill-Popper and

colleagues (2005) describe leadership as a meaning-making process within organizations.

Indeed, leadership has long been recognized as a reciprocal relationship and efforts to understand

or develop leadership must attend to the dynamics of this relationship (Kouzes and Posner 2003).

In addition, the impact of the nature of the organizational setting in which leadership

takes place is frequently overlooked in leader-focused models, such as authentic leadership.

Organizations are “sense-making systems” (Weick 1995). In the interpretation process,

individuals search for contexts in which details fit together into patterns of significant meaning

and make sense. This pattern of meaning, in turn, justifies behavior within organizational roles.

In the sense-making process, individuals search for patterns in which small details fit together

and make sense. It is a continuous process of interplay between details and explanations with

each element of the cycle generating substance for the other (Weick 1995). As followers also

aprescribe meaning to a situation, knowledge of their perspective may provide helpful insights to

leaders trying to make sense of a problem. Within an organization, Rost (1995) suggests both

leaders and followers “do leadership” together via a multidirectional influence relationship that

embodies the interaction between the person and the situation.

For leadership to occur and continue, followers must (a) take notice of and identify leader

characteristics in another, (b) perceive the other as a leader, (c) categorize the other as a leader

and finally, (d) choose to follow (Lord and Maher 1991; Smircich and Morgan 1982).

Consequently, no amount of overt leader behaviors alone will make a person a leader because

others must perceive and categorize a person as “leader” and then choose to follow. In the

context of social and organizational influences suggests, there could be “many a slip between

cup and lip” in the process by which a leader’s authenticity is judged by followers. The balance

6
of this chapter examines several variables which may influence follower perceptions about a

leader’s authenticity. Indeed, judgments by followers are not straight-forward, and may not be

based only partially on the nature of the leader’s self and, furthermore, may be strongly biased by

aspects of the followers themselves and the organizational situation that are outside the leader’s

control. The variables interacting with and possibly confounding person perception processes

may include the nature of leadership roles, implicit leadership theories of followers and the

nature or context of the organization itself.

Job role effects on person perceptions

Employee perceptions of leader behaviors, including the way in which leaders

communicate communication, may reflect the job role that the leader is occupying (Herold and

Fields 2004; Shivers-Blackwell 2004). Every work environment presents a set of activities or

roles that are defined as potential behaviors to be performed in accordance with a specific job.

These aspects of the job context include role set, expectations, pressures and role behavior

(Shivers-Blackwell 2004). Role set refers to the other people presenting role

expectations/requirements to a leader. The role set usually includes an immediate supervisor,

subordinates, and certain members of other interdependent departments. Some demands and

constraints such as required duties, activities, standards, objectives and responsibilities that must

be met and can neither be ignored nor delegated within an organization also serve as influences

on a leader’s behaviors. Role expectations amount to the beliefs and attitudes that organization

members have about what a leader should and should not do (Porr and Fields 2006; Shivers-

Blackwell 2004).

7
 These expectations may be communicated directly, as when a job description specifies

the requirements of their job or indirectly, as when a colleague expresses admiration for some

behavior. Role pressures come within numerous influence attempts aimed at establishing

conformity with the expectations of superiors, such as accomplishment of objectives or from

subordinates looking for help in making a job easier (Shivers-Blackwell 2004). In some cases,

leaders have a pre-conception of their job as well as a set of attitudes and beliefs about how a

leader should behave, frequently grounded in beliefs of influential members of the organization.

In summary, role expectations and norms may induce behavioral responses that may be

evaluated by various role senders, with subsequent adjustment of the leaders’ role congruent

behaviors.

Followers also pay attention to differing aspects of leader behaviors and draw

conclusions about their implications. Follower expectations about how a person within a

leadership role should behave combined with basic person perception processes may result in

conclusions about leader characteristics such as authenticity. For example, in a study within a

matrix organization, Herold and Fields (2004) found systematic differences in follower ratings of

leaders’ behaviors between department and project managers. One explanation for these

differences is that leaders emphasize different behaviors to accomplish the objectives associated

with the job role. Since project managers are primarily responsible for motivating and

coordinating subordinate efforts in order to meet project goals, it is not surprising that they may

adopt or rely on a leadership style that demonstrates more encouraging and facilitative behaviors.

Department managers focus on staffing projects, training subordinates and overseeing technical

aspects of design. They do not put as much effort into recognizing or encouraging subordinates’

8
contributions to projects and may have limited information about their subordinates’

contributions to these projects.

Research suggests that the process of person perception usually involves the following

components (Fields 2007):

 Acquaintance. What is the amount of information (appearance, behaviors, etc.)

originating from a focal person to which a perceiver is exposed?

 Overlap. To what extent do two or more perceivers observe the same behaviors of a focal

person?

 Shared meaning. To what extent is behavior of a focal person given the same meaning by

two or more perceivers?

 Consistency. How consistent is the focal person’s behavior across instances?

 Extraneous information. To what extent does a perceiver rate the focal person on the

basis of information other than behaviors or personal attributes?

 Communication. To what extent do perceivers share with each other their impressions of

the focal person?

This model may help explain Ladkin and Taylor’s (2010) description of an episode from

the 2008 election in which Hillary Clinton’s tears in response to a question were widely cited as

evidence of deeply authentic behavior. Examining Ms. Clinton’s tearful reaction with the above

model, it becomes clear that role expectations influence the interpretation of authenticity. First,

crying seems to represent an increase in the information originating from Clinton the candidate

not only because it is un-scripted and spontaneous but also because it is inconsistent with a

political candidate’s expected behaviors. In addition, multiple observers in the press witnessed

the tearful behavior and undoubtedly shared impressions and possible descriptions of the actions

9
with one another. Information other than Ms. Clinton’s immediate tearful reaction may have

been considered by observers as well, such as her previous lack of tears or other overt emotional

reaction at the time that her husband was admitting infidelity while President. While the model

of person perception describes the elements entering into follower conclusions about

authenticity, the weighting and interpretations of these elements may be based on expectations of

the leader’s job role and how that leader has fulfilled that role in the past. One implication clearly

is that a leader who suddenly becomes focused on demonstrating his or her authenticity may be

perceived by followers based not only on how the leader has behaved in the past, but also on

what the role of leader is perceived to entail within the particular organizational setting. This

perspective is consistent with suggestions of Freeman and Ambady (2011) that the person

perception process is dynamically changing and involves interaction between social categories,

stereotypes and cues including facial, vocal and body features.

Implicit leadership effects on person perceptions

To most, the details of a person’s set of beliefs about leader traits remain outside of their

conscious awareness, i.e. implicit. Early researchers defined these implicit theories about

leadership as “conceptual factors that the respondents brought with them to the… situation”

(Eden and Leviatan 1975, p. 738). In explaining implicit leadership theories, Lord, Binning,

Rush and Thomas (1978) described these factors as the internal representations that influence a

person’s process used to organize and classify the external world. Thus, through an automatic

and spontaneous recognition and evaluation process, observers form perceptions of and

conclusions about others as leaders. Implicit leadership theories (ILTs) can be seen as a set of

personal characteristics and behaviors that individuals unconsciously expect from leaders. These

10
characteristics exist as mental representations of ideal leadership and serve as the point of

comparison for a person to be regarded as a potential leader (Schyns and Meindl 2005). The

implicit leadership theories held by followers are unconscious, individualized, well-defined

internal representations of leadership from which a follower draws automatic and spontaneous

conclusions about a person as a leader.

Eden and Leviatan (1975) conducted the initial research on elements making up follower

ILTs finding respondents paid particular attention to (1) support, (2) work facilitation, (3)

interaction facilitation and (4) goal emphasis. Subsequent studies added intelligence as a key

predictor of leadership (Bass 1990; Johnson 2007). Followers seem to expect leaders to have the

ability to grasp complex information and to make informed decisions. Offermann, Kennedy, and

Wirtz (1994) identified 41 characteristics followers stored as ILTs. The researchers categorized

these 41 factors along eight dimensions: (a) sensitivity, (b) dedication, (c) tyranny, (d) charisma,

(e) attractiveness, (f) masculinity, (f) intelligence and (g) strength. Table 1 provides an overview

of the factors comprising Offerman and colleagues.

-------------------------------------------

Insert Table 1 about here

-------------------------------------------

The absence of negative traits also seems to be a requirement to be classified as a leader.

Followers often view leaders as those who make personal sacrifices in a dedicated effort to

accomplish outcomes (House, Spangler and Woycke 20011991). Thus, conceit, manipulation

and self-seeking tendencies are not considered ingredients of leadership.

11
 Lord (1985) suggested leader perceptions could be understood in terms of five

information processing steps in the mind of the potential follower: (a) selection-attention/

comprehension; (b) encoding; (c) storage and retention; (d) information retrieval and (e)

judgment. For this process to commence, something must capture the observer’s attention.

Implicit leadership models may influence perceptions of a focal leader by establishing a filter

which is used to screen information selected for attention (Broadbent 19587; Treisman 1988). If

derailment occurs anywhere along the information processing stages, the process will be

truncated and the person will not be perceived as a leader. That is, if something triggers the

observer’s attention but the “feature search” does not find identifiable characteristics that match

the observer’s prototypical leader traits, the target is not “remembered” or perceived as a leader

(Das, Naglieri and Kirby 1994).

Virtually all storage of information in long term memory and all significant information

processing may occur outside of the realm of consciousness (Bucci 2000). Thus, ILTs emerge

automatically from the storehouse of memory and past experiences in the unconscious, as

understood through psychodynamic theory. Followers may identify a person as a leader if there

is a fit between these unconsciously held descriptions and the target’s traits. Lord and Maher

(1991) explained perceivers use relatively automatic (or unconscious) categorization processes as

the basis for interpreting and evaluating leader traits. Thus, not only is the “list” of traits used to

identify one as a leader unconscious, the evaluation of a target as a potential leader also occurs

unconsciously. Positive or negative unconscious conclusions are drawn, influencing the

follower’s thinking, feeling and behavior toward the potential leader. The follower

unconsciously decides if the individual? target is indeed a leader and if they will choose to

follow their leadership.

12
 For a target to be identified as a leader, followers must recognize traits exhibited by the

target as leader-like. For followers to experience recognition of leader traits in a person, there

must be some past experience with similar traits in leader figures. For example, if a follower

holds memories of capricious and unpredictable responses from a past leader, they will be less

able to “recognize” leader traits of dedication and sensitivity. The traits of sensitivity and

dedication have not been associated with leadership in the past therefore may not be deemed as

recognizable leader traits.

This cognitive process illustrates may reflect the impact of a follower’s past experience

with leader figures on their current frame of reference for leader traits. A leader’s characteristics

may be exhibited in the current situation and the follower may or may not attend to the trait,

depending on the results of a search of implicit and explicit memory. Therefore, the more closely

the target’s traits align with knowledge available in the follower's implicit and explicit memories

and the more positive comparison with existing models of leader-like traits, the more likely the

follower will categorize the characteristic as leader-like and deem the person to be a leader. If a

follower does not attend to the trait displayed by the potential leader, comparison will not occur.

If comparison does not occur, the target, no matter how qualified, will not be judged an

authenticto be a leader, authentic or otherwise. Thus, it follows that for a leader to be perceived

as authentic, dialectic needs to take place between authentic leader-like traits (for example,

sincerity, integrity, relational transparency as noted above) and existing models of authentic

leadership that align with knowledge available in the follower’s implicit and explicit memories.

The sources of a follower’s implicit leadership theory have received relatively little

research attention. However, some studies suggest that a person’s perceptions of a leader may be

driven in part by the nature of the observer’s work setting. Porr and Fields (2006) found evidence

13
that rather than objective observation of the behaviors, descriptions of leaders may have been

based on constructed explanations for positive overall assessments of retail store managers’

performance. Subordinates in stores rated more successful store managers higher on internal

process performance, while district director ratings of the performance of the same store

managers attributed success almost exclusively to merchandizing performance. These differences

may be driven by the way each type of employee is evaluated in his/her own job role. Although

the store personnel (subordinates of the store manager) are in the position to observe store

manager behavior, they are primarily concerned with the daily activities of running the store.

When presented with a request to rate the frequency with which the manager performed a list of

behaviors, subordinates may have attributed store success to an implicit cognitive model that

described how a manager of a store with this store’s internal process performance should behave.

The performance ‘halo’ seems to affect most behaviors regardless of their intrinsic contribution

to internal process performance of the store.

In this case, the district directors also had access to formal performance information for

all stores but they did not observe store manager behavior on a first-hand basis. The district

managers worry about the profitability and market share of the stores, which they largely equate

to making sure that the products being are available to the customer in an efficient manner.

Thus, the overall assessment of the store manager by the superiors may be explained by

merchandizing. When presented with a request to rate the frequency with which the manager

performs a list of behaviors, superiors may have attributed store success to an implicit cognitive

model that described how a manager of a store with this store’s merchandizing performance

should behave. The performance ‘halo’ again seems to affect the ratings for all types of

behaviors regardless of their intrinsic connection with store merchandizing.

14
 Other studies have found that socio-economic trends in society may help determine the

nature of ILTs. In a study covering four countries, McDermott (2008) found significant

differences in the preferences for numerous aspects of leadership of emerging professionals

compared to middle managers surveyed earlier by the GLOBE study. Many of the differences

may be attributable to changing social and economic conditions within the countries. For

example, Israeli emerging professionals in 2008 preferred leaders who could provide a stable

environment by being more procedural and who were more humane oriented (generous,

compassionate, caring for people) compared to middle managers surveyed ten years earlier by

the GLOBE study. The ILTs of emerging professionals in Israel may have been influenced by

Israel’s position at the centre of conflict in the Middle East, a decrease in political stability and

government effectiveness and the country’s reduced economic growth over the past ten years.

In the United States, emerging professionals indicated a greater preference for leaders

who were administratively competent, autocratic, autonomous, decisive, modest and non-

participative compared to middle managers surveyed by the GLOBE project approximately ten

years earlier. The economic, political and social environment in the United States has become

more uncertain in the past ten years and may account for the increased preferences for structure

and direction from leaders expressed by emerging professionals. These preferences may also

reflect the relatively slow growing US economy causing emerging professionals to prefer leaders

who provide more direction and guidance useful in figuring out how to do the things necessary

for movement within well-established structures. These data suggest that implicit leadership

theories may therefore not remain stable in a person over time. ILTs are viewed by many as

cognitive schema that are expressions of personal values. Some studies have suggested that

prevailing values may similarly change over time (Inglehart and Abrahamson 19947). Implicit

15
leadership theories may change over time because the internal mental models of followers

change as people age or have experienced different historical and societal changes.

Communication differences and person perceptions

Individual differences may also come into play in the process by which followers assess

and interpret leader behaviors and interact with leaders. For example, communication limitations

among followers’ apprehension levels may limit the positive effects of efforts at authenticity by a

leader. As Meindl (1993) has noted, leadership may be compared to spreading a cold. Followers

have to catch the cold for leadership to work – or for a leader to be judged authentic. One way of

characterizing differences among communication tendencies of individuals is by describing

levels of communication apprehension. McCroskey (1977) defined communication apprehension

(CA) “as the fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communication with

another person or persons” (p. 98). Richmond (1984) explained that “high CA people experience

emotional distress during or anticipating communication, prefer to avoid communication, and are

perceived by others and themselves as less competent, skilled, and successful” (p. 101).

Following from this, it could be suggested that leaders with higher levels of communication

apprehension may find it more difficult to demonstrate authenticity.

Followers with higher levels of CA may be subject to greater influences from other

followers who communicate more effectively and thus carry more weight in the social contagion

by which follower assessments of leader authenticity may be constructed. Most contemporary

communication theorists agree that both personality traits and situational aspects influence

individual communication apprehension. Trait apprehension “is a relatively enduring, personality

type orientation toward a given mode of communication across a wide variety of contexts”

16
(McCroskey 1982, p. 147). In contrast, state apprehension is specific to a given communication

situation. McCroskey (1982) re-conceptualized the construct of communication apprehension

placing CA on a continuum with state apprehension at one end and trait apprehension on the

other end, arguing that as with all human behavior, CA must be viewed as the product of both

personality characteristics and situational factors.

Organizational members exchange information and model behavior through collaborative

and assertive communication; however, individuals with high levels of CA frequently avoid

communication, withdraw from communication or disrupt the communication of others (Cole

and McCroskey 2003). McCroskey and Richmond (1976) reported that the frequency of

communication has a major impact on leaders’ perceived credibility, perceived status and

perceived leadership ability. Furthermore, individuals with high levels of CA are perceived as

being less competent and less successful, requiring more training and having difficulty

establishing positive relationships with subordinates, supervisors, and co-workers (Falcione,

McCroskey and Daly 1977; McCroskey and Richmond 1979).

Researchers have found levels of CA to be negatively related to leader-member exchange

(Madlock, Martin, Bogdan and Ervin 2007; Jones 2009), quality and quantity of work output

(McCroskey, McCroskey, and Richmond, 2005), and perceptions of leaders (McCroskey and

Richmond 1976). As Flauto (1999) reported, a leader’s vision becomes manifest through clear

and effective communication. CA may drastically limit the frequency and efficiency of

communicated messages, therefore, limiting the leader’s ability to produce positive

organizational outcomes. The influence of CA may inhibit followers from expressing innovative

ways of problem solving (e.g. as a result of intellectual stimulation) or articulating their

individual needs (e.g. as a result of individualized consideration). Furthermore, the absence of

17
communication is likely to promote perceptions of ineffective leadership by reducing members’

confidence in the leader’s vision or by inhibiting followers from understanding the leader’s

vision.

In addition to communicating a vision, the leader-member relationship is also determined

through the frequency and quality of communication exchanges (Graen, Dansereau and Minami

1972). Harvey, Martinko and Douglas and colleagues (2006) explained, “a leader’s ability to

interact effectively with subordinates is generally held to be crucial in creating and maintaining

an effective organization” (p. 747). Even the definition of communication embodies the

importance of establishing relationships. Therefore, not surprisingly, in the only two studies

conducted on CA and leader-member exchange theory (LMX) (Madlock et al. 2007), researchers

found a negative relationship between CA and LMX. In other words, as CA increases, the quality

of leader-member exchange decreases. Therefore, in order to increase the quality of interpersonal

exchanges, leaders must learn to minimize and manage CA. Recognition and management of CA

is especially important in a diverse workforce where crucial knowledge exchange creates trust

and minimizes fault-lines between diverse members.

The organizational context

Lord, Foti and De Vader (1984) suggest that leadership is an interaction of three

elements: leader attributes, situational characteristics and follower perceptions. Leadership, and

the process by which leaders and followers gather information and act upon it, is embedded

within the entirety of the organizational system (Osborn, Hunt and Jauch 2002). Social identity

theorists (e.g. Hogg, 2001) propose followers accept leaders when they embody the normative

18
characteristic of the group (e.g. the organization) because social cognitive processes negate or

depersonalize individual leader attributes. Individuals no longer rely on personalized information

about individuals but on representations of in or out-group prototypes and categorize others

according to a representation of group characteristics. As the process of social categorization

diminishes the importance of individual traits or behaviors, it has the potential of intensifying

aspects of the situation relative to the individual leader.

The meaning attributed to a situation also influences an individual’s behavior (Endler and

Magnusson 1976). A leader’s cognitive frameworks, particularly prescriptive mental models,

frame a leader’s behaviors in determining how to proceed and behave. Keller (2005) suggests

leaders often rely only on their own cognition to choose behaviors. However, as followers also

prescribe meaning to a situation, knowledge of the meaning ascribed to the situation from their

perspective, provides helpful insights to leaders trying to make sense of a problem. Kouzes and

Posner (2007) refer to this as building a shared vision. This shared process of sense-making

between leaders and followers becomes more important in situations with increased ambiguity

and uncertainty (Weick 1995). Hence, leader authenticity may be judged in part by followers

based on the perceived agreement of the leader with social norms prevalent in the organizational

setting. The extent to which these norms reflect the internalized values and beliefs of the leader

may depend on selection and promotion criteria exercised within the organizational hierarchy.

Concluding thoughts

19
 The message embedded in this chapter is the realization that understanding how leader

authenticity and integrity may be perceived by followers requires consideration of a wide range

of variables, many of which are not related directly to the nature or behaviors of the leader.

Authenticity and integrity, in particular, are attributes that a follower might assign to a

leader within the context of other attributes such as job role expectations and past experiences

with leaders, follower implicit models of the characteristics associated with a good leader, social

influences exerted on a follower by co-workers who may have very different models of the

characteristics of good leaders, communication skills and patterns of the leader and the followers

and the norms present within the culture and climate of an organizational setting. Considering

how these follower differences and contextual variables may cause unreliability in follower

perceptions of a leader, the self-referent nature of authentic leadership may make it very difficult

to implement as a leadership strategy.

Unfortunately the impact of contextual variables on follower perceptions and assessments

of leaders has received relatively little research attention. The contextual impacts may have

counter intuitive profound implications for authentic leadership development. For example, if

work unit success positively influences follower perceptions of personal leader attributes

including authenticity and integrity, leadership development efforts might be focused on

diagnosing the pathways to work unit success. Judgments about leader authenticity may follow.

As Hall and Lord (1995) have suggested, some of the pertinent effects on the shared meanings

that influence follower perceptions may occur across organizational levels. Indeed, some of the

affective, emotional or spiritual influences on followers’ perceptions of leaders may originate

within the images, norms or connections of followers to groups, departments, locations and

20
organizations. As the novelist H.M. Tomlinson (1931) observed, “We don’t see things as they

are; we see things as we are” (p. 148).

21
References

Avolio, B. and W. Gardner (2005), ‘Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of

positive forms of leadership’, The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315–338.

Bass, Bernard. M. (1990), Bass & Stodgill’s Handbook of Leadership, New York: Free Press.

Bligh, M.C., Kohles, j.C. & Pillai, R (2011) ‘Romancing leadership; Past present and future.’

The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1058–1077

Bass, B. and William Steidlmeier (1999), ‘Ethics, character, and authentic transformational

leadership’, The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181–217.

Becker, T.E. (1998), ‘Integrity in organizations: Beyond honesty and conscientiousness’,

Academy of Management Review, 23, 154–161.

Broadbent, D.E. (1958), Perception and Communication, Oxford: Pergamon.

Bucci, W. (2000). ‘The need for a “psychoanalytic psychology” in the cognitive science

field’,Psychoanalytic Psychology, 17, 203-224.

Carducci, B. J., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1995). ‘Are you shy?’ Psychology Today, 28(6), 34-78.

22
Chan, A., S. Hannah, and W. Gardner, (2005), ‘Veritable authentic leadership: Emergence,

functioning, and impacts’, in W. Gardner, B. Avolio, and F. Walumba (eds.), Authentic

Leadership Theory and Practice: Origins, Effects, and Development, Oxford : Elsevier Ltd.

Cole, J.G. and J.C. McCroskey, (2003), ‘The association of perceived communication

apprehension, shyness, and verbal aggression with perceptions of source credibility and affect in

organizational and interpersonal context’, Communication Quarterly, 5(1), 101-110.

Conger, J. A. (1990) ‘The dark side of leadership’, Organizational Dynamics, 19 (2), 44-56.

Das, J.P., Naglieri, J.A. and Kirby, J.R. (1994), Attention. In Assessment of cognitive processes:

The PASS theory of Intelligence, Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Eagly, A. (2005), ‘Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter?’ The

Leadership Quarterly, 16, 459–474.

Eden, D. and U. Leviatan, (1975), ‘Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the factor

structure underlying supervisory behavior scales’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(6), 736-

741.

Endler, N. and D. Magnusson, (1976), ‘Toward an interactional psychology of personality’,

Psychological bulletin, 83(5), 956-974.

23
Falcione, R.L., J.C McCroskey,. and J.A. Daly, (1977), ‘Job satisfaction as a function of

employees' communication apprehension, self-esteem, and perceptions of their immediate

supervisors’, Communication Yearbook, 1, 363-376.

Fields, D. (2007), ‘Determinant s of follower perceptions of a leader’s authenticity and integrity’,

European Management Journal, 25(3),195–206.

Flauto, F.J. (1999), ‘Walking the talk: The relationship between leadership and communication

Competence’, The Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(1), 86-97.

Freeman, J.B. and N. Ambady (2011), ‘A Dynamic Interactive Theory of Person Construal’,

Psychological Review, 118(2), 247–279.

Gardner, W.L., C.C. Cogliser, K.M. Davis, and M.P. Dickens (2011), ‘Authentic leadership: A

review of the literature and research agenda’, The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1120–1145.

Graen, G.B., F. Dansereau, and T. Minami (1972), ‘An empirical test of the man-in-the-middle

hypothesis among executives in a hierarchical organization employing a unit-set analysis’,

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 262-285.

Hall, R. J., & R. G. Lord, (1995). Multi-level information - processing explanations of followers'

leadership perception. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 265-287.Hall and Lord (1995

24
Harvey, P., M.J., Martinko, and S.C. Douglas, (2006), ‘Causal reasoning in dysfunctional leader-

member interactions’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(8), 747-762.

Herold, D. and D. Fields, (2004), ‘Making sense of subordinate feedback for leadership

development: Confounding effects of job role and organizational rewards’, Group &

Organization Management, 29(6), 686–703.

Hogg, M. (2001), ‘A social identity of leadership’, Personality and Social Psychology Review,

5(3), 184-200.

House, R.J., W.D. Spangler and J. Woycke, (1991), ‘Personality and charisma in the U.S.

Presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness’, Administrative Science Quarterly,

36, 364-396.

House, R., P. Hanges, M. Javidian, P. Dorfman and V. Gupta (2004), Culture, Leadership, and

Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications.

Inglehart, R & Abramson, P. R. (1994) Economic security and value change. The American

Political Science Review, 88 (2): 336-354

Inglehart 1997

25
Johnson, B.E. (2007), ‘Taking the child to work: The relationship of adult attachment styles and

implicit leadership theories in organizational settings’. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Regent

University.

Jones 2009

Keller, T. (2005), ‘Leader images and their implications for organizational life’, in B. Schyn and

& J. Meindl (eds.) Implicit leadership theories. Essays and explorations Greenwich,

Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.

Kouzes, J. and B. Posner (2007), The leadership challenge (4th ed.), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J.M. and B.Z. Posner (1987), The leadership challenge: How to Get Extraordinary

Things Done in Organizations, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ladkin, D. and S.S. Taylor, (2010), ‘Enacting the ‘true self’: Towards a theory of embodied

authentic leadership’, The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 64–74.

Lamertz, K. (2002), ‘The social construction of fairness: Social influence and sense making in

Organizations’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(1), 19–37.

26
London, M. and J. Smither (1995), ‘Can multi-source feedback change perceptions of goal

accomplishment, self-evaluations, and performance related outcomes? Theory-based applications

and directions for research’. Personnel Psychology, 48, 803–839.

Lord, R.G. and C.G. Emrich (2001) ‘Thinking outside the box by looking inside the box:

Extending the cognitive revolution in leadership’, The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 551–579.

Lord, R. G. and K.J. Maher (1991) ‘Cognitive theory in industrial and organizational

Psychology’, in M.D. Dunnett and L. Hough (eds.) Handbook of industrial and organizational

psychology (Vol. 2,). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, pp. 1-62.

Lord, R. G, J.F. Binning, M.C. Rush, and J.C. Thomas (1978), ‘The effects of performance cues

and leader behavior on questionnaire rating of leader behavior’, Organizational Behavior and

Human Performance, 21, 27-39.

Lord, R. G., R.J. Foti, and C.I. De Vader (1984), ‘A test of leadership categorization theory:

Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions’, Organizational Behavior

and Human Performance, 34, 343-378.

Madlock, P.E., M.M. Martin, L. Bogdanand M. Ervin (2007), ‘The impact of communication

traits on leader-member exchange’, Human Communication, 10, 451-464.

27
McCroskey, J.C. (1977), ‘Oral communication apprehension: A summary of recent theory and

Research’, Human Communication Research, 31(1), 78-96.

McCroskey, J.C. (1982), An introduction to rhetorical communication (4th ed.), Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

McCroskey, J. C., Heisel, A. D., & Richmond, V.P. (2001) ‘Eysenck's big three and

communication traits: Three correlational studies’, Communication Monographs, 68: 360-366.

McCroskey, L. L., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (2005). Applying organizational

orientations theory to employees of profit and non-profit organizations, Communicaation

Quarterly, 53, 21-40. McCroskey, McCroskey, and Richmond, 2005

McCroskey, J. C. and V.P. Richmond (1976), ‘The effects of communication apprehension on

the perception of peers’, Western Speech Communication, 8, 14-21.

McCroskey, J. C. and V.P. Richmond (1979), ‘The impact of communication apprehension on

individuals in organizations’. Communication Quarterly, 27, 55-61.

McDermott. M. (2008) ‘Culture and Leadership in Transition: Comparing Perceptions of

Cultural Values, Cultural Practices, and Leadership Preferences across Generations in Israel,

South Africa, and the United States’, Doctoral dissertation, Regent University: Virginia Beach

28
Meindl, J. (1993),’ Reinventing leadership: A radical, social psychological approach’, in J.K.

Murnighan (ed.) Social Psychology in Organizations: Advances in Theory and Research,

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Meindl, J., S. Ehrlich and J. Dukerich (1985), ‘The romance of leadership’, Administrative

Science Quarterly, 30, 78–102.

Neider, L.L. and C.A. Schriesheim (2011), ‘The Authentic Leadership Inventory (ALI):

Development and empirical tests’, The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1146–1164.

Offermann, L., J.K. Kennedy, Jr. and P.W. Wirtz (1994), ‘Implicit leadership theories: Content,

structure, and generalizability’, The Leadership Quarterly, 5(1), 43-58.

Olaniran , B. A. & Roach , K. D. (1994), ‘Communication apprehension and classroom

apprehension in Nigerian classrooms’, Communication Quarterly, 42, 379 – 389

Osborn, R., J. Hunt and L. Jauch, (2002) ‘Toward a contextual theory of leadership’, The

Leadership Quarterly, 13, 797-837.

Palanski, M.E. and Yammarino, F.J. (2007) ‘Integrity and leadership confusion’, European

Management Journal 25, 171–184.

29
Pfeffer, J. and G. Salancik (1978), The External Control of Organizations. New York: Harper &

Row.

Podolny, J.M, R. Rakesh Khurana & M. Hill-Popper (2005), ‘Revisiting the meaning of

Leadership’, Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 1- 36.

Porr, D. and D. Fields (2006), ‘Implicit leadership effects on multi-source ratings for

management development’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 651-668.

Richmond, V.P. (1984), ‘Implications of quietness: Some facts and speculations’, in J.A. Daly

and J.C. McCroskey (eds.) Avoiding Communication, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Rost, J. C. (1995). ‘Leadership: A discussion about ethics’, Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(1),

129−142.

Schyns, B. and J.R. Meindl (2005), ‘An overview of implicit leadership theories and their

application in organization practice’, in B. Schyns and J.R. Meindl (eds.) Implicit Leadership

Theories: Essays and Explorations, Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers.

Shivers-Blackwell, S. (2004). ‘Using Role Theory to Examine Determinants of Transformational

and Transactional Leader Behavior’, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(3): 41-

68.

30
Smircich, L. and G. Morgan (1982), ‘Leadership: The management of meaning’, Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science, 18(3), 257-273.

Smith, J. E., Carson, K. P. & Alexander, R. A. (1984) ‘Leadership: It can make a

difference’,

Academy of Management, 27, 765-776.

Tomlinson, H.M (1931), Out of Soundings,New York: Harper and Brothers.

Treisman, A. (1988), ‘Features and objects: The fourteenth Bartlett Memorial Lecture’,

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A, 201-236.

Walumbwa, F. O, B.J. Avolio W.L. Gardner T.S. Wernsing and S.J. Peterson (2008), ‘Authentic

leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure’, Journal of Management,

34(1): 89-126.

Weick, K. (1993), ‘Sense-making in organizations: Small structure with large consequences’, in

J.K. Murnighan (ed.) Social Psychology in Organizations: Advances in Theory and Research,

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Weick, K. (1995), Sense-making in organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

31
Table 1: Elements of Comprising Offermann et. al.’s (1994) Eight Dimensions of Implicit
Leadership Theories

DIMENSION ITEMS

Sensitivity  Sympathetic  Sincere

 Sensitive  Warm
 Compassionate  Forgiving
 Understanding  Helpful

Dedication  Dedicated  Hard-working

 Motivated  Goal-oriented

Tyranny  Domineering  Conceited

 Pushy  Loud
 Dominant  Selfish
 Manipulative  Obnoxious
 Power Hungry  Demanding

Charisma  Energetic  Enthusiastic

 Charismatic  Dynamic
 Inspiring

Attractiveness  Well-groomed  Well-dressed

 Attractive  Classy

Masculinity  Male  Masculine

Intelligence  Intellectual  Wise

 Educated  Knowledgeable
 Intelligent  Clever

Strength  Strong  Bold

32