Adapted For Emerald CCM v1 102015 DF10815

Authentic Leadership Among Nigerian Employees 1
Authentic Leadership, Organizational Commitment, and Perceived Leader

Effectiveness Among Nigerian Employees
Abstract
Purpose – This study examined the endorsement of authentic leadership and its
relationships with follower outcomes of perceived leader effectiveness and ,
organizational commitment among employees in Nigeria. and the extent to which
contingent leadership behaviors interact with authentic leadership to strengthen its
relationship with these employee outcomes. The study contributes to the
incremental understanding of cross-cultural leadership behaviors by comparing the
relationship of authentic leadership with desired outcomes in Nigeria to similar
relationships observed in previous studies in U.S. and other Western employees.
Design/methodology/Approach - This empirical study used cross-sectional survey
data collected from a sample of 212 Nigerian employees across multiple industrial
sectors.
Findings – Results of hierarchical regression analysis of this study showed a clear
linkage between several dimensions of authentic leadership (AL) and the outcome
variables of organizational commitment (OC) and perceived leader effectiveness
(LE). The AL dimension of self-awareness was not a positive predictor of OC.
Practical Implications - This study showed that authentic leadership behaviors of
self-awareness, relational transparency, balanced processing, and moral values
were endorsed by employees in Nigeria as in other nations, including the United
States and Europe, with positive effects on leadership and organizational outcomes.
Originality/value – This is the first study which examines the components that
constitute authentic leadership and perceived leader effectiveness in non-Western
organizational contexts and the first to examine authentic leadership and
organizational commitment in Nigeria.
Keywords Authentic leadership, Nigeria, Organizational commitment, Leader
effectiveness, Contingent reward, Organizational citizenship behavior, Nigeria,
Cross-cultural leadership
Research type Research paper
Introduction
Authentic leadership has been identified as embodying the core of positive
leadership (Avolio and Gardner, 2005). Following a number of high-profile
corporate scandals, there has been a renewed interest in recent years on positive
leadership (Avolio and Gardner, 2005; Luthans, 2002). Some scholars
(Posner,2013) have argued that current societal challenges stringently demand
positive leadership, such as authentic leadership, to provide common effective
leadership skills across national boundaries. Although the theory is still considered
to be in its infancy (Gardner et al., 2011; Klenke, 2007), it has received favorable
interest and acceptance by scholars and practitioners. For example, Ladkin and
Taylor (2011) reported that three special issues of academic journals have been
devoted to authentic leadership.
Previous studies of authentic leadership studies have been conducted using
samples from the United States and, more recently, from China (Walumbwa et al.,
2008; Whitehead and Brown, 2011) and Kenya (Walumbwa, et al., 2008). While
the results of these studies provide valuable frameworks for understanding and
applying an authentic leadership model, there is still need to test the model in other
contexts. Scholars have emphasized the importance of adapting leadership models
in diverse contexts (House, Hanges, Javidan, et al., 2004; Terry, 1993;
Vogelgesang et al., 2009). Particularly, The Global Leadership and Organizational
Behavior (GLOBE) study (House, Hanges, Ruiz-Quintallina, et al., 2004) and
others (Northouse, 2013; Vogelgesang et al., 2009) have cautioned that any
leadership model that will function in the current global economy cannot be
grounded in only one culture.
Studies that examine leadership approaches in different cultures are
important not only because they investigate the extent to which approaches may be
universally endorsed, but also help highlight judgments as to howthese approaches
are perceived by followers (Vogelgesang et al., 2009). Therefore, research that tests
and compares leadership theories developed in the United States and applied in
countries such as Nigeria may help refine existing leadership theories and aid
leadership adaptation. From a practical perspective, such studies provide evidence-
based insights for multinational entities that operate in the primary economic
sectors of Nigeria as well as to the development and growth of leadership and
management practices within sub-Saharan Africa. As Walumbwa et al. (2011)
cogently noted, the various ethnic and linguistic sensitivities notwithstanding,
“there are underlying commonalities in cultural values that can inform the practice
of leadership and management” (p.428) in Africa.
According to the GLOBE study, cultural differences, can be differentiated
on the bais of nine dimensions (House, Hanges, Javidan, et al., 2004). For example,
the cultural dimensions that differentiate U.S. and Nigeria include power distance
with Nigeria being high and U.S. low, uncertainty avoidance (Nigeria high, U.S.
low), performance orientation (Nigeria low, U.S. high) and assertiveness (Nigeria
low, U.S. high) (House, Hanges, Riuz-Quintallina et al., 2004; Javidan et al., 2006).
Although there are cultural differences in the qualities associated with
effective leadership (House, Hanges, Javidan, et al., 2004; House, Javidan et al.,
2006), various studies (Vogelgesang et al., 2009; Posner, 2013) indicate that
different cultures converge on a number of attributes that are “universally deemed
to be desirable” (Javidan et al., 2006, p. 75). The authentic leadership model has
been described as embodying many of these universal attributes, including honesty,
moral integrity, and concern for followers. Therefore, it should be endorsed across
many cultures. However, in many high-power settings such as Nigeria, leaders are
viewed by followers as different kinds of people who should be revered, and being
authentic may undermine leaders’ credibility given that authentic leadership is a
model that builds credibility by encouraging diverse viewpoints and building
collaborative network relationships with followers. Therefore, this study has three
objectives. These are: (1) investigate the extent to which Nigerian employees
experience authentic leadership, (2) examine the extent to which authentic
leadership is related to organizational commitment and leadership effectiveness
among Nigerian employees, and (3) compare the extent of authentic leadership
experiences and nature of relationships with organizational commitment and leader

effectiveness with the results found previously in studies conducted in other
countries. The current study will contribute to the much-needed body of literature
regarding authentic leadership relationships and follower outcomes in different
cultural contexts.
While a number of studies have examined authentic leadership as predictor
of a number of leadership and organizational outcomes such as employee
engagement, organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), innovation, job
satisfaction and performance (Jensen and Luthans, 2006; Walumbwa et al, 2008;
Gardener et al., 2011; Leroy et al, 2012; Peus et al., 2012; Valsania et al., 2012),
this study extends outcomes to include follower perceptions of leader effectiveness
to empirically test authentic leadership and organizational leadership effectiveness.
Background, Research Questions, and Study Hypotheses
Leadership Within Nigeria

Nigeria is a multiethnic country along the west coast of Africa. Although
the entity is made up of over 250 ethnic groups and 300 tribes, there are three major
groups: the Igbos along the eastern region, the Hausas along the northern region,
and the Yorubas along the western region. Historically, Nigeria was a British
colony between the 19th and 20th centuries. In 1914, the British government
amalgamated the tribes and groups into one entity called Nigeria (Chukwu and
Eluka, 2013; Ejimabo, 2013). Prior to British colonial rule, the major tribes of east,
west, north, and south Nigeria had different tribal leadership models. These models
were largely influenced by ethic culture, religious beliefs, and neighborhood
relations that were either aggressive or peaceful (Chukwuebuka, 2012). According
to Ejimabo (2013), each tribe struggled to excel or surpass the other. Tribal
customs and traditions are established to guide, direct, and control the beliefs,
attitudes, and habits of its individual members. Failure to comply with the
collective will is believed to be an act of disloyalty that may be punishable with
severe penalties. Obedience to the tribe is therefore inculcated in the tribe folk from
childhood (Azikiwe, 1964) and individuals become group members by birth

(Essien-Obot, 1991).
Leadership in Nigeria is often characterized by position held through
seniority. Seniority could emerge from age grade, educational status, official rank
or position, and/or economic status (Dondo and Ngumo, 1988; Ude and Bete,
2013). In Nigeria as in other collectivist societies, social bond is very strong among
members, and a strong patriarch emerges as a result of any or a combination of the
identified factors above as the leader. This structure makes the hierarchical
structure a naturally suited model for Nigeria. Consequently, several authors
(Chukwu and Eluka, 2013; Ejimbo, 2013) have highlighted the apparent difficulty
in applying most modern Western-based (especially United States and United
Kingdom) leadership and organizational theories in Nigeria because of cultural
issues.
According to Ude and Bete (2013), application of these theories in African
organizations and particularly in Nigerian organizations may be a factor in the
disorder and leadership disruptions present in Nigerian organizations because they
seem to ignore the traditional value systems such as status, motivation,
commitment, leadership position, tenureship, and belief systems. For example,
employees in Western cultures have an independent self-concept, while people in
Nigeria have an interdependent self-concept (Markus and Kitayama, 1991).
Consequently, cultural distinctions may be reflected in how self is constructed and
social relations understood (Fiske et al., 1998).
However, values and norms among Nigerians and groups within the
Nigerian nation are changing as a result of long-term exposure to Western culture,
education, and globalization (Olupona, 2012; Tayeb, 2001). Azikiwe (1964)
observed that some tribes and groups are able to preserve their identity; in other
cases, they amalgamate to produce an offspring, which evolves into a new
prototype. As Olupona (2012) noted, scholars of African management theory have
failed to recognize that Nigeria cannot and should not strive to reclaim a total
precolonial African leadership paradigm and apply it to the Nigerian context today.
Tayeb (2001) pointed out that rigidly placing countries on a relatively static
continuum neglects the fluctuating, changing, and sometimes paradoxical nature of

culture (Bolden and Kirk, 2006). Yusuf, Muhammed and Kazeem (2014) argued
that although hierarchical structure and leadership position are important in
Nigerian organizational leadership, authenticity, initiative, courage, follower
growth opportunities, and empowerment have emerged as desired values by all
members. By implication, these vagaries suggest that employee experiences of
authentic leadership may be relatively low in Nigerian organizations. Hence the
research question: Are experienced levels of AL in Nigeria similar to those found
in the US, Germany and Spain?
Authentic Leadership
The authenticity concept is multidisciplinary in nature and noted to straddle
across various psychological disciplines such as humanistic psychology (Maslow,
1971), developmental psychology (Erickson, 1995), as well as philosophy (Klenke,
2007; Sartre, 1994), religion, and history (Terry, 1993) and has been has been
conceptualized from these different perspectives. According to Terry (1993), the
construct is “ubiquitous” (p. 139). Review of the root word, the various usages,
and earlier references point toward the self as the core reflected in various
expressions and phrases—self-examination as used by Socrates or self-realization
as used by Aristotle (Gardner et al., 2011). Irrespective of which perspective taken,
each approach has considered self as the center of authenticity expressed in varied
forms: (a) knowing one’s self, (b) true-self, (c) self-awareness or self-knowledge
(Gardner et al., 2005; Ladkin and Taylor, 2010; Northouse, 2013), and (d) self-
consistency (Peus et al., 2012). Consequently, scholars describe authentic
leadership as self-referential (Fields, 2007; Ladkin and Taylor, 2010). Gardner et
al. (2005) maintained that no matter the expression given to self, recognition of the
self-referential nature of authenticity is central to understanding the construct.
The core of authentic leadership extends beyond the authenticity of the
leader as a person to encompass authentic relations with followers (Avolio and
Gardner, 2005; Gardner et al., 2005). Authenticity cannot be discovered in the
absence of others but in relation to others. Sparrowe (2005) argued that Kernis
(2003) identified four components of authenticity: (a) self-awareness, (b) unbiased

processing, (c) action, and (d) relational. Fields (2007) noted that a leader’s
authenticity must be recognizable by followers in order for these positive attributes
to make a difference in either the degree of influence or nature of influence on the
followers. Consequently, authentic leaders’ behaviors impact followers and are
reflected on the followers’ actions (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999; Fields, 2007; Zhu
et al., 2011). Zhu et al. (2011) proposed that authentic leaders demonstrate moral
behaviors that promote mutual trust and follower empowerment and thus are able
to influence group culture, structure, policies, and procedures, which provide
important guidance and direction for collective cognition, perception and
interpretation.
Defining authentic leadership has been challenging. Various scholars have
taken different approaches in defining authentic leadership and its characteristics.
Shamir and Eilam (2005) approached the concept from an intrapersonal perspective
focusing on what goes on within the leader—convictions and values (Northouse,
2013). Klenke (2005, 2007) conceptualized authentic leadership from a self-
knowledge perspective and extended that conceptualization to include an
interrelated identity system: self-identity, leader identity, and spiritual identity.
George (2003) and George and Sims (2007) emphasized relationship in describing
authentic leadership. Authentic leaders are able to build connections with others
through self-disclosures and by developing a sense of trust among followers
(Northouse, 2013). Gardner et al. (2005) attempted an integrated definition that
considered the different perspectives and proposed a self-based model that extends
beyond the leader to include “authentic relations with followers and associates” (p.
345). At the core of this model is the key role of the leader in follower
development.
Walumbwa et al. (2008) defined authentic leadership as
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 identifies four dimensions of authentic leadership (a) self-
awareness, (b) internalized moral perspective, (c) balanced processing, and (d)
relational transparency. In proposing this operational definition, Walumbwa,
Avolio, et al. maintained that these four components, though related, are necessary
for a person to be considered an authentic leader. In addition, this construct
definition and dimensional structure formed the basis for the validation of the
Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) and the operational definition used in
this study.
(a) Self-Awareness
Self-awareness refers to the individual or a leader’s intrapersonal
knowledge—the leader’s understanding and deep insights of himself or herself
including strengths and weaknesses (Northouse, 2013; Walumbwa et al., 2008).
Authenticity is based on one understanding and being true to self. Bennis (1984)
asserted that leaders need to know themselves well. Leaders need to take specific
actions to learn about themselves through their experiences (Korac-Kakabadse,
Korac-Kakabadse, and Kouzmin, 2001), introspection (Gardner et al., 2005), and
self-regulation (Luthans and Avolio, 2003; Sparrowe, 2005). This self-knowledge
structure helps people organize and give meaning to their behavior (Klenke, 2007)
and environment (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Luthans and Avolio (2003) posited that
self-regulation is the process through which the behavior of authentic leaders
becomes transparent. According to Sparrowe (2005), consistency of authentic
action and behavior “is the result of self-awareness and self-regulation working in
concert” (p. 423). Self-awareness is both internal and external (Ladkin and Taylor,
2010; Walumbwa et al., 2010)—internal referent (mental states) and external
referent (reflected self-image or how a leader is perceived).
(b) Internalized Moral Perspective
Just like self-awareness, internalized moral perspective is intrapersonal and
a vital component of authentic leadership (Hannah et al., 2005). Scholars have
believed that authentic leaders must be grounded on morality (Fields, 2007;
Walumbwa et al., 2008). Authentic leaders are believed to be deeply aware of their
values and beliefs and self-confident and perceived to be genuine, reliable,
trustworthy, and of high moral character (Avolio and Gardner, 2005; Fields, 2007;
Ilies et al., 2005). Internalized morality refers to the leader’s action being guided by
deep-rooted moral values and standards and not tossed by external pressures (peers,
organizational, and societal). In this process, internal regulatory process enables
consistency in behavior. Internalized moral strength enables authentic leaders to put
power, self-interest, and self-aggrandizement in check (Bass and Steidlemier, 1999;
Michie and Gooty, 2005).
(c) Balanced Processing
The balanced processing concept was earlier described as unbiased
processing. Unbiased processing implies that a leader consistently and objectively
assesses both positive and negative self-aspects of presented information without
distortions, denials, and or exaggerations (Kernis, 2003). The foundational
argument and debate against this conceptualization derives from cognitive
psychology research, which asserts that humans are inherently flawed and therefore
incapable of unbiased opinions in information processing (Gardner et al., 2005;
Kliuchnikov, 2011). Gardner et al. (2005) argued that because authentic leaders
know who they are and possess “optimal self-esteem” (p. 356) and are less ego
involved, they are able to more objectively process both self aspects information.
Leaders who are perceived to exhibit balanced processing, seek diverse views even
if such views challenge their opinions and analyze all information before making a
decision (Walumbwa, Wang, et al., 2010).
(d) Relational Transparency
Relational transparency refers to presenting one’s real or authentic self as
opposed to a fake, inauthentic, or distorted self to others (Walumbwa et al., 2008).
Relational transparency involves personal disclosures, openly sharing information,
and expressing true thoughts and motives (Gardner et al., 2005; Ilies et al., 2005;
May et al., 2003). Authentic leaders achieve relational transparency with followers
by being open with information, promoting sharing information, utilizing
appropriate self-disclosure, and being trustworthy (Meacham, 2007). This truthful
disclosure fosters trust and cooperation (Rowe and Guerrero, 2011). Klenke (2007)
stated that authentic leaders build their reputation on trustworthiness, advanced
moral standards, and positive psychological capacities they deploy in leadership
roles through self-awareness and relational transparency. As leadership models,
authentic leaders lead by example as they demonstrate transparent decision making,
create hope and optimism among followers, and display consistency and alignment
between words and actions (Avolio and Gardner, 2005). Relational transparency is
an active process of self-disclosure of both good and bad (Ilies et al., 2005).
Organizational Commitment
Organizational leaders are always looking for ways to improve employee
commitment. Interest in organizational commitment has increased in recent times
as organizations seek ways to balance the paradoxical situations that have defined
organizations in the last few decades with implications for organizational
commitment. For instance, while the current business environment calls for
commitment from employees, the different restructuring programs (downsizing,
outsourcing, and mergers and acquisition) all work to undermine commitment of
employees (Gandolfi, 2006, 2008; Meyer and Parfyonova, 2010). At a general
level, organizational commitment has been defined as a psychological state that
characterizes an employee’s relationship with the organization, which has
implications for whether the employee chooses to remain with the organization
(Allen and Grisaffe, 2001). Although various definitions of organizational
commitment have been proposed in literature, they share a common theme of
individual identification and involvement with the organization (Mowday, 1998;
Mowday et al., 1982) or bond to the organization (O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986).
Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) noted that in addition to the differences
among scholars on the nature of this psychological state and how it works to bind
employee to the organization, leadership and context have emerged as contributing
variables to employee commitment (Klenke, 2007; Podsakoff and Mackenzie,
1997; Van Scotter, 2000). Avolio, Zhu et al. (2004) suggested that higher levels of
commitment in followers are associated with followers whose personal self-
concepts are identified with missions and causes pursued by the organization.
Leaders can influence followers’ commitment through promotion of higher levels
of intrinsic value and linking goal accomplishment with follower effort (Avolio,
Zhu, et al., 2004). According to LMX theory, supervisors and followers develop
quality relationship through reciprocated exchanges (Graen and Scandura, 1987);
high LMX provides mutual reinforcement, builds trust, and tends to shape
employees’ positive attitudes toward organizations, organizational commitment,
and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Lee et al., 2014).
Authentic leadership and organizational commitment

Theoretically, authentic leadership may have a direct effect on follower
work attitudes, including organizational commitment, engagement, and job
satisfaction (Avolio, Gardner, et al., 2004; Gardner et al., 2005; Walumbwa et al.,
2008) because authentic leaders build trust with followers. In addition, Ilies et al.
(2005) asserted that authentic leaders through relational orientation encourage
followers to identify with both the leader and the organization both cognitively
(self-efficacy) and affectively (self-liking) (Klenke, 2007). Self-efficacy manifests
through self-perceived capabilities in carrying out the general leadership tasks and
responsibilities such as directing, setting, and gaining follower commitment.
Through relational transparency leaders build their reputation on trustworthiness,
advanced moral standards, and positive psychological capacities which influence
followers’ trust and, ultimately, the assessment of leadership performance and
effectiveness. Gardner et al. (2005) stated that when trust in leadership is well
placed, as is the case with authentic leaders who are guided in their actions by end
values, it leads to elevated levels of job satisfaction, OCB, organizational and goal
commitment, and job performance among followers (Dirks and Ferrin, 2002).
Authentic leaders are able to build enduring relationships through
demonstration of authentic behaviors (Avolio and Gardner, 2005), which includes
open access to information, focus on follower growth and development, fair and
equal treatment of all followers, being guided by deep moral perspective, and
values to do what is right and fair (Avolio et al., 2004; Ilies et al., 2005). According
to leader exchange theory (LMX), supervisors and followers develop quality

relationship through reciprocated exchanges (Graen and Scandura, 1987). High
LMX provides mutual reinforcement, builds trust, and tends to shape employees’
positive attitudes toward organizations, organizational commitment, and OCB (Lee
et al., 2014). Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, et al. (2000) observed that job attitudes
such as perception of fairness can be independently related to OCB.
Avolio, Gardner, et al. (2004) suggested that higher levels of commitment
in followers are associated with followers whose personal self-concepts are
identified with missions and causes pursued by the organization. Authentic leaders
are able to increase follower engagement, motivation, and commitment through
establishing personal identification with followers and social identification with the
organization (Avolio, Gardner, et al., 2004; Kark and Shamir, 2002). Jensen and
Luthan (2006) found that authentic leadership is positively related to organizational
commitment. Similarly, Walumbwa et al. (2008) reported a positive association
between authentic leadership and organizational commitment using a U.S. sample.
Authentic leaders through self-awareness, relational transparency, internal moral
perspective, and balanced processing are able to sustain relationships with
followers and guide follower development; these behaviors enable followers to
connect with authentic leaders’ values, beliefs, and goals over time.
Based on the theoretical support from the literature discussed above, this
study tested the following hypotheses related to organizational commitment:
Hypothesis 1a: Leader self-awareness is positively related to organizational
commitment among Nigerian employees.
Hypothesis 1b: Leader relational transparency is positively related to
organizational commitment among Nigerian employees.
Hypothesis 1c: Balanced processing is positively related to organizational
commitment among Nigerian employees.
Hypothesis 1d: Leader internal moral perspective is positively related to
organizational commitment among Nigerian employees.
Authentic leadership and leadership effectiveness

The study of leadership effectiveness has more or less mirrored the historical
developments in the study of leadership. First, leader effectiveness has been
attributed to leader traits (LaPort, 2012). LaPort (2012) asserted that much of what
we know about the determinants of leader effectiveness comes from the trait
approach to leadership. Others have theorized on leadership effectiveness being
achieved through certain leadership styles (Judge and Piccolo, 2004). Leadership
style generally refers to the leader’s mode of decisions, behavior, and interaction
with followers in the course of performing his or her role (Lewin et al., 1939;
Wood, 2007). There seems to have been no agreement in literature on which
approach leads to leader effectiveness.
Yukl (2010) aptly stated that both trait and behavior research have added
value to understanding leader effectiveness, however, both approaches suffer “from
a tendency to look for simple answers to complex questions” (p. 80). While traits,
styles, behaviors, and contextual factors have all been identified as important
variables to consider in evaluating leader effectiveness, followers have recently
emerged in leadership research as a key variable. The assertion is that there is no
leadership without followership and, according to Shamir et al. (2007), followers
define leadership. Proponents of the follower-centric view have asserted that
followers’ internal expectations, including attitudes, values, and behaviors of
leaders, are critical to perceptions of leadership effectiveness (Bass, 1990b; Holritz,
2009; Lord and Maher, 1991).
For leaders to be effective, they must be able to motivate and direct
followers toward group or organizational goals as well as maintain harmony and
stability within the group (Van Knippenberg and Hogg, 2003a). Hollander and
Julian (1969) posited the factors of favorability and effectiveness depend on the
perceptions of followers and their identification with the leader, which affects the
leader’s ability to be influential. According to Klenke (2007), through self-
awareness, authentic leaders become aware of the various aspects of their identities
and the extent to which their self-perceptions are internally integrated and
congruent with the ways others perceive them. Leaders who are perceived to
exhibit balanced processing are not afraid to seek diverse views, even if such views
challenge their opinions, and analyze all information before making a decision
(Walumbwa et al., 2010). Followers tend to trust a leader who is seen or perceived
to be open to input and feedback (Puls, 2011). Puls (2011) empirically investigated
authentic leadership and its relationship to ministerial effectiveness and reported
positive associations between authentic leadership and hypothesized an outcome of
ministerial effectiveness.
Given the theoretical base, the following hypotheses were tested in this
study:
Hypothesis 2a: Leader self-awareness is positively related to perceived
leader effectiveness among Nigerian employees.
Hypothesis 2b: Leader relational transparency is positively related to
perceived leader effectiveness among Nigerian employees.
Hypothesis 2c: Balanced processing is positively related to perceived
leader effectiveness among Nigerian employees.
Hypothesis 2d: Leader internal moral perspective is positively related to
perceived leader effectiveness among Nigerian employees.
Method
Sample and Procedures

The sample for this study was collected from employees in 15 organizations
across multiple sectors of Nigeria, including banking and finance, oil and gas,
education, telecommunications, travel, and insurance. Organizations were selected
on the basis of business or personal relationships with individuals involved in these
organizations. After a total of 303 survey questionnaires were distributed, 246
responses were returned. Of these 212 were usable with no missing data values.
This represented response rate of 86% of returned responses. However, during
preliminary data analysis, one response was considered unusable due to extreme
response scores. Therefore, only 211 responses were used for analyses
Demographic information for all employees receiving a questionnaire was not
available and thus it was not possible to compare respondents and non-respondents.
The nature of the sample is described in table 1

Insert Table 1 here
Table 11: Demographic Characteristics of Participants (N = 211)
% of group
Variable N
sizesample
Age category and values assigned
Category 1 ≤ 21 years 20 .5
Category 2 = 21-29 25 28.8
Category 3 = 30-39 35 48.1
Category 4 = 40-50 45 13.7
Category 5 ≥ 50 50+ 9.0
Education
High school 1 .5
Associate degree’s 10 4.7
Bachelor degree’s 107 50.5
Masterdegree’s 84 39.6
Postgraduate 9 4.2
Doctorate 1 .5
Gender
Male 119 56.1
Female 93 43.9
Job level
Management 58 27.4
Non-management 153 72.2
Of the respondents of this study, 93 (43.9%) were female and 119 (56%)
were male. Nigerian National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) (2014), 45% of women
and 62% of men have higher than secondary education. Thus the sample
respondents seems to be reasonably representative of Nigerian employees with
some higher education. .
Measures
Organizational commitment (OC)was measured using Cook and Wall’s (as
cited in Fields, 2002) nine-item Organizational Commitment Scale that assesses
general organizational commitment along these three dimensions (a) organizational
identification, (b) organizational involvement, and (c) organizational loyalty
(Fields, 2002). This measure uses a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), and consisting of statements such as “I
feel myself as part of this organization” and “I am quite proud to be able to tell
people who it is that I work for.” Reliability (Cronbach’s α) for this scale for this
measure was .77.
Perceived leader effectiveness (LE) was measured with the Leader
Preference Scale (Ehrhart and Klein, 2001). This is a six-item scale that measures
participants’ responses on a 6-point Likert response scale and consists of such
questions as “To what extent did you work at a high level of performance under
this leader?” “To what extent did you enjoy working with this leader?” The
reliability (Cronbach’s α) for this scale was .91.
Authentic leadership was measured with the Authentic Leadership
Questionnaire (ALQ). This consists of 16 items using a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently, if not always; Walumbwa et al., 2008).
Reliability (Cronbach’s α) for the AL was .93. Each of the four dimensions was
also tested as independent variables in association with the dependent variables—
organization commitment and perceived leader effectiveness. Self-awareness was
measured with 4 items, (e.g. “seeks feedback to improve interactions with others”),
internal moral perspective was measured with 4 items (e.g. “makes difficult
decisions based on high standards of ethical conduct”), balanced processing was
measured with 3 items (e.g. “solicits views that challenge his or her deeply held
positions”), and relational transparency was measured with 5 items (e.g. “admits
mistakes when they are made”). The reliabilities (Cronbach’s α) for these four
subscales are .86, .78, .79, and .77 respectively.
Control variables
Social desirability, a control variable in this study, was measured with Hays
et al.’s (1989) Socially Desirable Response Set (SDRS-5; Hays, Hayasi, & Stewart,
1989). A 5-item short true/false measure that helps distinguish individuals who are
responding factually from those who may be responding in a way that they perceive
to be socially desirable. Sample statement include “I sometimes feel resentful when
I do not get my way.” The reliability (Cronbach’s α) for this scale is .69.
Gender, tenure with current manager, tenure with current organization, job
level (management vs. nonmanagement), and level of education are other control
variables in this study. They were measured on a nominal scale by simply
categorizing them.
Data analyses
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was used to test the hypothesized
relationships between the predictor variables (the four dimensions of authentic
leadership: self-awareness, relational transparency, balanced processing and
internal moral perspective) and outcome variables of OC and LE. In this analysis,
all control variables were entered first followed by the independent variables.
Results
Prior to conducting regressions analyses, correlations between the variables
were examined. Table 2 presents the mean scores, standard deviations, and Pearson
correlations among the independent, dependent, and control variables.
Insert Table 2 Here
Table2: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Study Variables (N = 211)
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Gender 1.44 .50 –

Education 3.44 .70 -.08 –
Job position 1.73 .50 .12 -.25** –
Tenure manager 2.51 2.60 -.12 -.00 .04 –
.24*
Tenure org 5.03 5.12 -.16* .24 -.26** –
*
Social desirability 3.64 .98 -.05 -.03 .01 .06 .10 –
ALQ self-awarnss 2.60 .95 .10 -.03 -.10 .16* .19** .16* –
.21* .71*
ALQ rel trans 2.84 .84 .05 .02 -.10 .16* .28** –
* *
.78* .62* –
ALQ balanced pro 2.74 .97 .00 -.02 -.14* .15* .18** .17*
* *
.18* .64* .65* .63*
ALQ int moral p 2.82 .85 .06 .04 -.05 .22** .20** –
* * * *
.19* .25* .25*
Org commitment 5.14 .83 .07 .16* -.18** .12 .23** .14* .26** –
* * *
.69* .66* .64* .25* –
Leader effectiveness 4.22 1.20 .07 -.11 .05 .17* .14* .25** .55**
* * * *
.56* .51* .53* .30* –

Contingent reward 3.72 1.02 .12 .08 .00 .05 .12 .17* .50** .70**
* * * *
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Relational transparency was the authentic leadership dimension that obtained the
highest mean score. The correlation analysis revealed significant positive correlations between
the hypothesized predictor variables: self-awareness, relational transparency, balanced
processing, and internal moral perspective outcome variables of organizational commitment and
leadership effectiveness. Self-awareness showed the weakest correlation with organizational
commitment (r = .19, p ˂ 05), while internal moral perspective showed the strongest (r = .26, p ˂
.05). For leadership effectiveness, the reverse in the strength of the correlation with the predictor
variables was noted. Self-awareness showed the strongest correlation (r = .69, p ˂ .05), while
internal moral perspective showed the weakest (r = .55, p ˂ .05).
The hierarchical regression analyses results testing hypotheses 1a – 1d are reported in are
reported in Table 3.
Insert Table 3 Here
Table 3: Summary Regression Analyses: Hypotheses 1a – 1d
Model, block and predictor
Β R2 ∆R2 ∆F
variables
Model: SA-Org Comm
Block 1 .12 .16 4.43
Educational level .11
Job position -.13
Tenure manager .09
Tenure organization .16**
Gender .13*
Social desirability .13*
Block 2 .13 .01 2.72
Job position -.13
Tenure manager .08
Tenure organization .14
Gender .18
Social desirability .12
Self-aware (Independent .11

Β R2 ∆R2 ∆F
variables
variable)
Model: RT-Org Comm
Block 1 .16** .16 4.43
Job position -.13
Tenure manager .01
Gender .13*
Block 2 .14* .03** 6.10
Job position -.12
Tenure manager .07
Tenure organization .14*
Gender .12
Rel Transp (Independent .17**
variable)
Model: BP-Org Comm
Block 1 (control variables) .12** .12 4.43
Job position -.13
Tenure manager .10
Tenure organization .16*
Gender .13*
Block 2 .15** .03 7.38
Job position -.11

Β R2 ∆R2 ∆F
variables
Tenure manager .08
Gender .12
Bal. Proces (Independent .19**
variable)
Model: IMP-Org Comm
Job position -.13
Tenure manager .10
Gender .13*
Block 2 .15** .03 7.34
Job position -.13
Tenure manager .07
Gender .11
Int. moral p. (independent .19**
variable)
Note: SA = self-awareness, RT = relational transparency, BP = balanced processing, IMP = internal moral
perspective, AL = authentic leadership, org comm = organizational commitment *p ˂ .05. **p ˂ .01.
Hypotheses 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d suggest that each of the four dimensions of AL (self-
awareness, relational transparency, balanced processing, and internal moral perspective) is a
positive predictor of organizational commitment among Nigerian employees. The result of
the regression analysis did not support self-awareness as a predictor of organizational
commitment, although there was a positive correlation between the two variables (β = .11, p
=.10). Relational transparency, balanced processing and internal moral perspective were
predictors of organizational commitment (β = .17, p < .01, β = .19, p < .01 and β = .19, p
< .01, respectively), and authentic leadership (β = .20, p ˂ .01).
The regression models testing hypotheses 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d are shown in Table 4
Please Insert Table 4 Here
Β R2 ∆R2 ∆F
variables
Model: SA-Leader
effectiveness
Block 1 .12 .13 4.87
Educational level -.14*
Job position -.07
Tenure manager .14*
Gender .12
Social desirability .24**
Block 2 .15 .39 160.17
Educational level -.09
Job position -.02
Tenure manager .06
Gender .03
Self-aware (Independent .65**
variable)
Model: RT-Leader
effectiveness
Block 1 .13** .13 4.87
Job position -.07

Β R2 ∆R2 ∆F
variables
Tenure manager .14
Gender .17
Block 2 .46* .34** 126.44
Job position -.02
Tenure manager .03
Gender .05
Rel Transp (Independent .62**
variable)
Model: BP-Lead
effectiveness
Job position -.07
Tenure manager .14*
Gender .12
Block 2 .45** .33 121.91
Educational level -.09
Job position .01
Tenure manager .07
Gender .08

Β R2 ∆R2 ∆F
variables
Bal. Proces (Independent .60**
variable)
Model: IMP-Lead
effectiveness
Job position -.07
Tenure manager .14*
Gender .12
Block 2 .35** .22 68.50
Educational level -.14**
Job position -.06
Tenure manager .07
Gender .06
Int. moral p. (independent .50**
variable)
Note: SA = self-awareness, RT = relational transparency, BP = balanced processing, IMP = internal moral
perspective, AL = authentic leadership, org comm = organizational commitment *p ˂ .05. **p ˂ .01.
Hypotheses 2a – 2d proposed that the four dimensions of AL (self-awareness, relational

transparency, balanced processing, and internal moral perspective) are predictors of leader
effectiveness among Nigerian employees. Results indicate that all four dimensions are each
a predictor of leader effectiveness (β = .65, p ˂ .01, β = .62, p ˂ .01, β = .60, p ˂ .01 and β
= .50, p ˂ .01, respectively).
The result of the regression analysis did not support self-awareness as a predictor of
organizational commitment, although there was a positive correlation between the two variables.
Also, while relational transparency model was significant, it was very differential. Although not
many studies have measured organizational commitment using the ALQ subscales, prior studies
investigating these dimensions found relational transparency as the only dimension with
significant effect in predicting OCBs (Wong and Cummings, 2009; Valsania et al., 2012). The
total AQL(all four dimensions combined) indicated the largest variance when compared with
each of the dimensions in predicting organizational commitment ((β = .20, ∆R2 = .04, p ˂ .01)
which is similar to other studies using US samples.
A summary of the comparison of other studies of authentic leadership as predictor of
organizational commitment is shown in Table 5
Insert Table 5 Here
Table 5: Comparison with US studies: Authentic Leadership Predicting Organizational
Commitment
Sample size Finding
Study
(n ) (Org. commitment)
This Study 211 + (β = .20, p ˂ .01)
Walumbwa et al. (2008) 178 + (β = .28, p ˂ .01)
Jensen & Luthans (2006) 179 + (β = .30, p ˂ .01)
Note. + = significant positive relationship
Results from this study show that Nigerians endorse authentic leadership similar to the
employees in the US. However, a number of factors need to be considered in the comaprison
above including sample characteristics and the measures used in the studies. For instance, the
mean age in Walumbwa et al. (2008) study was 26 years (SD = 7.23) and 56% female while the
mean age in this study was 35years (SD = .90) and 44% female. This study controlled for
gender, tenure with organization, tenure with manager, educational level and social desirability.
Jensen and Luthans further noted that authentic leadership yielded the strongest corrleation with
affective dimension of organizational commitment (r = .64, p ˂ .01) rather than normative (r
= .38, p ˂ .01)) and affective (r = -.02, p ˃ .01). On the contrary, Leroy et al. (2013) found that
despite the positive correlation, there was no positive relationship between authentic leadership
and affective organizational commitment in the Belgian sample studied.
Table 6 shows the mean comparison with other studies in US and other countries.
Insert Table 6 Here
Table 6: Comparison of Means Levels of Authentic Leadership Perceived by the Employees
across Five Contexts
N
This Study Variables M SD
211 (Nigeria)
Self-awareness 2.58 .95
Relational Transparency 2.84 .84
Balanced Processing 2.74 .97
Internal Moral Perspective 2.82 .85
Walumbwa et al. (2008) Variables 178 (US) M SD
Peus et al. (2012) Variables 157 (Germany) M SD
Self-awareness 3.11 1.03
Walumbwa et al. (2008) Variables 478 (Kenya) M SD
Valsania et al. (2012) Variables 227 (Spain) M SD
Internal Moral Perspective has the highest mean score in US and German samples. For the
others (Nigeria, Spain and Kenya), it is Relational Transparency. Similarly, Self-awareness
has the lowest score in Nigeria, Spain and Kenya.
Discussion
This study aimed to examine the endorsement of authentic leadership among Nigerian
employees and to compare that with similar studies in the studies in United States employees.
The results indicate that Nigerians perceive authentic leadership similar to other nations/contexts
(Jensen and Luthans, 2006; Walumbwa et al., 2008; Valsania et al. 2012; Peus et al. 2012). The
regression analysis result showed that self-awareness is not a predictor of organizational
commitment. A number of possible factors could account for this lack of support. One possible
explanation is that leadership perception and impact goes through cultural lenses. The
theoretical mechanisms through which authentic leadership influence organizational commitment
may be culturally inhibiting for the Nigerian context. Avolio and Gardner (2005) suggested that
the relationship between authentic leadership and follower affective organizational commitment
is through positive social exchanges and personal identification of the follower with the leader.
As authentic leaders interact in open and nondefensive ways, they present themselves vulnerable
because they show their true selves, including strengths and weaknesses. Such vulnerability not
only will be seen as weakness in the Nigerian culture, it will be resisted. In most Nigerian
traditions, a leader does not show any vulnerability because the leader is perceived as a hero.
This study differed and possible explanation indicated that leadership perception and impact goes
through cultural lenses. According to Sprietzer et al. (2005), constructs and theories developed
in a Western context cannot be assumed to work the same way in cultures with sustantially
different value sets and sometimes the meanings attached of constructs tend to differ in
relationship relevant outcomes.
This study found that authentic leadership is a strong predictor of leader effectiveness.
Review of literature showed that research exploring the effectiveness of authentic leadership in
international contexts is limited. However, this result is consistent with Puls (2011) which found
that the total ALQ scale also predicted ministerial effectiveness using US samples. Scholars and
leaders have long been keenly interested in understanding what contributes to leader
effectiveness. Results from this study showed that a leader’s intrapersonal (self-awareness and
internal moral values) and interpersonal (relational transparency and balanced processing)
dimensions are important in leadership development, which confirms assertions in leadership
literature regarding components of leadership effectiveness.
Although authentic leadership is defined in self-referent terms, Ladkin and Taylor (2010)
clearly stated, “It is the way in which that true self is enacted which is critical to followers'
experience . . . and as such includes both the embodied, as well as the intentional aspects of a
leader’s enactment of their role” (p. 64). Bass (1997) describes positive leadership behavior as
universal. According to Fields (2007), in order for a leader’s authenticity to influence follower
actions, he or she must be respected by followers. In addition, factors of favorability and
effectiveness depend upon perceptions of the followers and their identification with the leader
(Hollander & Julian, 1969). The current study shows that followers validate authentic behaviors
as effective leadership behaviors. Leadership effectiveness has been documented in literature to
lead to increased organizational performance, sustained follower achievement (Bass, 1991;
Waters et al., 2003), and commitment to organizational missions (Yukl, 2010). Thus,
organizations might be encouraged to select leaders who display authentic leadership behaviors
using the ALQ, for example. This can also be achieved through leadership training interventions.
Limitations/future directions
Like any research, potential weaknesses and limitations of this study need to be
acknowledged. Reliance on the same questionnaire to measure both the independent and the
outcome variables for all data and lack of control for common method bias was a weakness of
this study. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, et al. (2003) cautioned that common method bias is a
concern when the source of data for the dependent and independent variables is from a common
source. Consequently, answering questions related to one of the study variables could have
influenced responses on other variables with similar characteristics. However, this approach was
required in order to confirm that followers perceive authentic leadership behaviors as effective
leadership (Eagly, 2005; Fields, 2007).
Another weakness included the sampling process and voluntary options given as part of
the conditions to participate. First, the sample has higher-than-typical educational level because
the sampling deliberately targeted participants with college degrees and above. These meant that
(a) not every employee could participate and (b) not the perception of every employee in these
organizations and sectors was captured and measured. Although Levin (2006) stated that in
cross-sectional designs, prevalence of outcome of interest can be estimated because sample is
usually taken from the whole population, the total number of respondents in this study may not
represent the opinion of the majority employees in the participating organizations.
As earlier stated, authentic leadership theory is still emerging, and more research is
needed for conceptual clarification and construct predictive validity in different contexts (Peus et
al., 2012; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Therefore, further studies on authentic leadership using
Nigerian samples, investigating authentic leadership effect on other outcome variables or even
same outcome variables in this study would be beneficial to authentic leadership literature.
Although effort was made to ensure that this study included participants who could
understand the questions (college graduates and above), future research efforts on authentic
leadership, relationship with followers, and outcome in Nigeria could be strengthened by
augmenting quantitative with qualitative methods of data collection such as observation and
structured interviews. This study collected data at one time only. Future research could also
benefit from longitudinal investigation, which can aim to track the process and possible timely
dynamics of follower perception of authentic leadership and outcomes across different times.
Funding
This research received no funding whatsoever.
References
Allen, N.J. and Grisaffe, D.B. (2001), “Employee commitment to the organization and customer
reactions: Mapping the linkages”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol.11, pp.
209-236.
Avolio, B.J. and Gardner, W.L. (2005), “Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root
of positive forms of leadership”. The Leadership Quarterly, Vol.16, pp. 315-338.
Avolio, B.J., Gardner, W.L., Walumbwa, F.O., Luthans, F. and May, D.R. (2004), “Unlocking
the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and
behaviors”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol.15, pp. 801-823.
Avolio, B.J., Zhu, W., Koh, W. and Bhatia, P. (2004), “Transformational leadership and
organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and
moderating role of structural distance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25

No.8, pp. 951-968.
Azikiwe, N. (1964), “Tribalism: A pragmatic instrument for national unity”, available at
http://www.blackpast.org/1964-nnamdi-azikiwe-tribalism-pragmatic-instrument-national-
unity (accessed 08 September 2014)
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and performance beyond expectations, Free Press, New York,
NY.
Bass, B.M. (1990a), Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research and
managerial applications, 3rd ed., Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. (1990b), “From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the
vision”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol.18, pp. 19-31.
Bass, B.M. (1997), “Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend
organizational and national boundaries?” American Psychologist, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 130-
139.
Bass, B. and Steidlmeier, P. (1999), “Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership
behavior”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 181-217.
Bennis, W. (1984), “The four competencies of leadership”, Training and Development Journal,
Vol. 15, pp. 144-149.
Bolden, R. and Kirk, P.C. (2006), “Leadership in Africa: Insights, meanings and connotations”,
available at http://businessschool.exeter.ac.uk/documents/
discussion_papers/cls/Leadership in-Africa.pdf (accessed 12 November, 2014).
Chukwu, B.I. and Eluka, J. (2013), “Applications of leadership theories in Nigerian business
organizations” European Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 5 No.17, pp. 167-
171.
Chukwuebuka, U.F. (2012), “Traditional Nigerian leadership: A way out to our present
democracy” 21 August, available at
http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/guest-articles/traditional-nigerian-leadership-a-
way-out-to-our-present-democracy.html (accessed September 12, 2014).
Cohen, A. (2007), “Commitment before and after: An evaluation and reconceptualization of
organizational commitment”, Human Resource Management Review Vol. 17, pp. 336-
354.
Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1983), Applied Regression Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral
Sciences, 2nd ed., Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
Cook, J. and Wall, T.D. (2002), “New work attitude measures of trust, organizational
commitment and personal need for non-fulfilment”, in Fields, D.L., Taking the measure
of work: A guide to validated scales for organizational research and diagnosis, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 56-57.
Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2002), “Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and
implications for research and practice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No.4, pp.
611-628.
Dondo, A. and Ngumo, M. (1998), “Africa: Kenya”, in Morrison, A. (Ed.), Entrepreneurship:
An international perspective, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, pp. 15-26.
Eagly, A.H. (2005), “Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter?” The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp.459-474.
Ehrhart, M.G. and Klein, K.J. (2001), “Predicting followers’ preferences for charismatic
leadership: The influence of follower values and personality” The Leadership Quarterly
Vol. 12, pp. 153-179.
Ejimabo, N.O. (2013), “Understanding the impact of leadership in Nigeria: Its reality,
challenges, and perspectives”, available at
http://www.sagepublications.com/content/3/2/2158244013490704 (accessed 23 August
2014)
Erickson, R. (1995), “The importance of authenticity for self and society” Symbolic Interaction
Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 121-144.
Essien-Obot A. (1991), Personnel management and Nigeria culture, Gaskiya Press, Zaria,
Nigeria.
Fields, D.L. (2002), Taking the measure of work: A guide to validated scales for organizational
research and diagnosis, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Fields, D.L. (2007), “Determinants of follower perceptions of a leader’s authenticity and
integrity” European Management Journal, Vol.25, pp. 195-206.
Fiske, A.P., Kitayama, S., Markus, H.R. and Nisbett, R.E. (1998), “The cultural matrix of social
psychology”, in Gilbert, D.T., Fiske, S.J. and Lindzey, G. (Eds), The handbook of social
psychology , 4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 915-81, McGraw-Hill, York, England.
Gandolfi, F. (2006), “The downsizing process—Conceptual frameworks’’, The Business Review,

Cambridge, Vol.6 No.2, pp.1-7.
Gandolfi, F. (2008), “Downsizing executioners and the experience of executing downsizing”,
Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, Vol. 13 No.1, pp. 294-302.
Gardner, W.L., Avolio, B.J., Luthans, F., May, D.R. and Walumbwa, F.O. (2005), “Can you see
the real me? A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development”
Leadership Quarterly, Vol.16, pp. 343-372.
Gardner, W.L., Cogliser, C.C., Davis, K.M. and Dickens, M.P. (2011), “Authentic Leadership: A
review of the literature and research agenda”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22,
pp.1120-1145.
George, W. and Sims, P. (2007), True north: Discover your authentic leadership, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA.
Graen, G.B. and Scandura, T. (1987), “Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing”, in Staw, B.
and Cumming, L.L (Eds), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 9, pp. 175-208, JAI
Press, Greenwich, CT.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2011), Multivariate data
analysis,7th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hannah, S.T., Lester, P.B. and Vogelgesang, G.R. (2005), “Moral leadership: Explicating the
moral component of authentic leadership” in Gardner, J.W., Avolio, B.J. and Walumbwa,
F. (Eds), Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects and development;
Monographs in leadership and management, Vol. 3, pp. 43-81, Elsevier, San Diego, CA.
Hollander, E.P. and Julian, J.W. (1969), “Contemporary trends in the analysis of leadership
processes”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol.71, pp. 387-397.
Holritz, P. (2009), “Exploring the relationship between religious beliefs and implicit leadership
theory: A study of the leadership preferences of Japanese employees” (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
3377765)
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W. and Gupta, V. (Eds). (2004). Culture,
leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies, Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintallina, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M., Dickson, M.
and Gupta, V. (2004). Cultural influences on leadership and organizations: Project
available at http://leadership.wharton.upenn.edu (accessed 27, July 2014).
Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P. and Nahrgang, J. D. (2005), “Authentic leadership and eudaemonic
well-being: Understanding leader–follower outcomes”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol.
16, pp. 373-394.
IIies, R., Nahrgang, J. and Morgeson, F. (2007), “Leader–member exchange and citizenship
behaviors: A meta-analysis”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 269-277.
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., De Luque, M. S. and House, R. J. (2006), “In the eye of the
beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership project GLOBE”, Academy of Management
Perspectives, Vol.20 No.1, pp. 67-90, available at
http://business2.fiu.edu/1315548/www/Spring_2010_MAN6626_RF2/..%5C..
%5Cmydocs%5Cglobe_leadership_amp.pdf (accessed 27. July 2014).
Jensen, S. M. and Luthans, F. (2006), “Entrepreneurs as authentic leaders: Impact on employees’
attitudes” Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 27, pp. 646-666.
Judge, T. A. and Piccolo, R. F. (2004), “Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-
analytic test of their relative validity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 5,
pp.755-768.
Kark, R. and Shamir, B. (2002), “The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming
relational and collective selves and further effects on followers” in Avolio, B.J and
Yammarino, F.J. (Eds), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead
JAI Press, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 67-91.
Kernis, M. H. (2003), “Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem”, Psychological
In,quiry, Vol.14 No.1, pp. 1-26.
Klenke, K. (2005), “The internal theater of the authentic leader: Integrating cognitive, affective,
conative and spiritual facets of authentic leadership”, in Gardner, J.W., Avolio, B.J.and
Walumbwa, F. (Eds), Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects and
development; monographs in leadership and management, Vol. 3, Elsevier San Diego,
CA, pp. 155-182.
Klenke, K. (2007), “Authentic leadership: A self, leader, and spiritual identity perspective”,
International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 68-97.
Kliuchnikov, A. (2011), “Leader’s authenticity influence on followers’ organizational

commitment”, Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol.4 No.1, pp. 70-90.
Korac-Kakabadse, N., Korac-Kakabadse, A.and Kouzmin A. (2001), “Leadership renewal:
Towards the philosophy of wisdom”, International Review of Administrative Sciences,
Vol. 67, pp. 207-227.
Ladkin, D. and Taylor, S. S. (2010), “Enacting the “true self”: Towards a theory of embodied
authentic leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 21, pp. 64-74.
LaPort, K. A. (2012), “A multistage model of leader effectiveness: Uncovering the relationships
between leader traits and leader behaviors” (Doctoral dissertation). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3548657)
Lee, K., Scandura, T. A. and Sharif, M. M. (2014), “Cultures have consequences: A configural
approach to leadership across two cultures”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 25, 692-710.
Leroy, H., Palanski, M. E. and Simons, T. (2012), “Authentic leadership and behavioral integrity
as drivers of follower commitment and performance”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol.
107, pp. 255-264.
Levin, K. A. (2006), “Study design III: Cross-sectional studies”, Evidence-Based Dentistry,
Vol.7, 24-25, available at http://www.nature.com/ebd/journal/ v7/n1/full/6400375a.htm
(accessed 5, September 2014).
Lord, R. G. and Maher, K. J. (1991), Leadership and information processing: Linking
perceptions and performance, Unwin-Hyman, Boston, MA.
Luthans, F. (2002), “The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23, pp. 695-706.
Luthans, F. and Avolio, B. J. (2003), “Authentic leadership: A positive developmental
approach”, in Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E. and R. E. Quinn (Eds), Positive organizational
scholarship, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA, pp. 241-261.
Markus, H. and Kitayama, S. (1991), “Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion
and motivation, Psychological Review, Vol. 98, 224-53.
Maslow, A. (1971), The farther reaches of human nature, Vicking, New York, NY.
Meacham, M. A. (2007), “Life stories of authentic leaders in higher education administration”,
(Doctoral dissertation, Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin) available
at https://www.lib.utexas.edu/etd/d/2007/ meachamm87333/meachamm87333.pdf
(accessed 16, April, 2014).
Meyer, J. P. and Herscovitch, L. (2001), “Commitment in the workplace: Toward the general
model”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol.11, pp. 299-326.
Meyer, J. P., & Parfyonova, N. M. (2010), “Normative commitment in the workplace: A
theoretical analysis and re-conceptualization”, Human Resource Management Review,
Vol. 20, pp. 283-294.
Michie, S. and Gooty, J. (2005), “Values, emotions, and authenticity: Will the real leader please
stand up?” The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 441-457.
Mowday, R. T. (1998), “Reflections on the study and relevance of organizational commitment.
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 8, No.4, 387-401.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W. and Steers, R. M. (1982), Employee-organization linkages,
Academic Press, New York, NY.
National Bureau of Statistics. (2014), Nigeria demographic and health survey 2013. Available at
http://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR293/FR293.pdf (accessed 16 March 2015).
Northouse, P. G. (2013), Leadership: Theory and practice, 6th ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Olupona, J. (2012), “The leaders Nigeria need”, This Day Live, 16 February, available at
http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/the-leaders-nigeria-needs/109385/ (accessed 12 April
2014).
O’Reilly, C. A. and Chatman, J. (1986), “Organizational commitment and psychological
attachment: The effects of compliance, identification and internalization on prosocial
behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 492-499.
Peus, C., Wesche, J. S., Streicher, B., Braun, S. and Frey, D. (2012), “Authentic leadership: An
empirical test of its antecedents, consequences, and mediating mechanisms”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 107 No. 3, pp. 331-348.
Podsakoff, P. M. and MacKenzie, S. B. (1997), “Impact of organizational citizenship behavior
on organizational performance: A review and suggestions for future research”, Human
Performance, Vol. 10, pp. 133-151.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003), “Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B. and Bachrach, D. G. (2000), “Organizational

citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and
suggestions for future research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26, pp. 513-563.
Podsakoff, P. M., Moorman, R. H. and Fetter, R. (1990), “Transformational leader behaviors and
their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and OCB”, Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 1 No.2, pp. 107-142.
Posner, B. Z. (2013), “It’s how leaders behave that matters, not where they are from”,
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 34 No.6, pp. 573-587. doi:
10.1108/LODJ-11-2011-0115
Puls, T. R. (2011), “Authentic leadership and its relationship to ministerial effectiveness”,
(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
(UMI No. 3498652)
Rowe, W. and Guerrero, L. (2011), Cases in leadership, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Sartre, J. P. (1994), Being and nothingness: An essay on phenomenological ontology, Routledge,
London, England.
Shamir, B. and Eilam, G. (2005), “What’s your story? A life-stories approach to authentic
leadership development”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp. 395-417.
Shamir, B., Pillai, R., Bligh, M. C. and Uhl-Bien, M. (2007), Follower-centered perspectives on
leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl, Information Age, Greenwich,
CT.
Sparrowe, R. T. (2005), “Authentic leadership and the narrative self”, The Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 16, pp. 419-439.
Spreitzer, G. M., Perttula, K. H. and Xin, K. (2005), “Traditionality matters: An examination of
the effectiveness of transformational leadership in the United States and Taiwan”, Journal
of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 205-227.
Tayeb, M. (2001), “Conducting research across cultures: Overcoming drawbacks and obstacles”,
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 1 No.1, pp. 91-108.
Terry, R. (1993), Authentic leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Ude, U. and Bete, E. (2013), Traditional value system and leadership effectiveness in Nigerian
organizations. Public Policy and Administration Review, Vol. 1, pp. 16-25, available at
www.aripd.org/ppar (accessed 27 July 2014).
Valsania, S. E., Leon, J. A. M., Alonso, F. M. and Cantisano, G. T. (2012), “Authentic leadership
and its effect on employees’ organizational citizenship behaviors” Psicothema, Vol. 24
No. 4, pp. 561-566.
Van Knippenberg, D. and Hogg, M. A. (2003), “A social identity model of leadership
effectiveness in organizations”, in B. M. Straw & R. M. Kramer (Eds), Research in
organizational behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews,
Vol. 25, available at http://itworkss.com/download/Study/Psychology/RESEARCH
%20IN%20ORGANIZATIONAL%20BEHAVIOR%20Vol%2025%20-%20Barry
%20Staw.pdf#page=250 (accessed 16 May 2014)
Van Scotter, J. R. (2000), “Relationships of task performance and contextual performance with
turnover, job satisfaction, and affective commitment”, Human Resource Management
Review, Vol. 10 No.1, pp. 79-95.
Vogelgesang, G., Clapp-Smith, R. and Palmer, N. (2009), “The role of authentic leadership and
cultural intelligence in cross-cultural contexts: An objectivist perspective”, International
Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 5 No.2, pp.103-117.
Walumbwa, F.O., Avolio, B.J. and Aryee, S. (2011), “Leadership and management research in
Africa: A synthesis and suggestions for future research”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 84, pp. 425-439.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S. and Peterson, S. J. (2008),
“Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 34, pp. 89-126.
Walumbwa, F. O., Wang, P., Wang, H., Schaubroeck, J. and Avolio, B. J. (2010), “Psychological
processes linking authentic leadership to follower behaviors”, The Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 21, pp. 901-914.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J. and McNulty, B. (2003), “Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement”, working paper,
available at http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED481972 (accessed 10 February, 2015).
Whitehead, G. E. and Brown, M. (2011), “Authenticity in Chinese leadership: A quantitative
study comparing western notions of authentic constructs with Chinese responses to an
authenticity instrument”, International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp.
162-188.
Wong, C. A. and Cummings, G. G. (2009), “The influence of authentic leadership behaviors on

trust and work outcomes of health care staff”, Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 3
No.2, pp. 6-23.
Wood, G. M. (2007), “Authentic leadership: Do we really need another leadership theory?”
(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
(UMI No. 3287378)
Yukl, G. A. (2010), Leadership in organizations,7th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Yusuf, M. O., Muhammed, U. D. and Kazeem, A. O. (2014), “Management of leadership style:
An approach to organizational performance and effectiveness in Nigeria”, International
Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education, Vol. 1 No.2, pp. 17-29.
Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J., Riggio, R. E., & Sosik, J. J. (2011), “The effect of authentic
transformational leadership on follower and group ethics”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol.
22, pp. 801-817.

Adapted For Emerald CCM v1 102015 DF10815

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adapted For Emerald CCM v1 102015 DF10815

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Authentic Leadership Among Nigerian Employees 1

Authentic Leadership, Organizational Commitment, and Perceived Leader

Research type Research paper

experiences and nature of relationships with organizational commitment and leader

Background, Research Questions, and Study Hypotheses

Leadership Within Nigeria

childhood (Azikiwe, 1964) and individuals become group members by birth

continuum neglects the fluctuating, changing, and sometimes paradoxical nature of

(2003) identified four components of authenticity: (a) self-awareness, (b) unbiased

information, and relational transparency on the part of leaders working with

Authentic leadership and organizational commitment

to leader exchange theory (LMX), supervisors and followers develop quality

Authentic leadership and leadership effectiveness

Sample and Procedures

The nature of the sample is described in table 1

Gender 1.44 .50 –

.56* .51* .53* .30* –

Model, block and predictor

Model, block and predictor

Model, block and predictor

Model, block and predictor

Hypotheses 2a – 2d proposed that the four dimensions of AL (self-awareness, relational

Note. + = significant positive relationship

moderating role of structural distance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25

Gandolfi, F. (2006), “The downsizing process—Conceptual frameworks’’, The Business Review,

Kliuchnikov, A. (2011), “Leader’s authenticity influence on followers’ organizational

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B. and Bachrach, D. G. (2000), “Organizational

Wong, C. A. and Cummings, G. G. (2009), “The influence of authentic leadership behaviors on

You might also like