The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua

A reconceptualization of authentic leadership: Leader legitimation via

follower-centered assessment of the moral dimension
⁎
Yusuf M. Sidania, , W. Glenn Roweb
a
Management, Marketing, and Entrepreneurship, Suliman S. Olayan School of Business, American University of Beirut, Bliss Street, Beirut, Lebanon
b
Ivey Business School, Western University, Canada

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: We explore some challenges that face authentic leadership scholarship including problems related to how the
Leadership construct is understood and measured. We present a model of authentic leadership that looks at it, not as a
Authentic leadership leadership style, but as an outcome of a legitimation process. Authentic leadership represents legitimated fol-
Ethical leadership lower perceptions of a leader's authenticity which are activated by moral judgments. We explain how a follower-
Followers
centered assessment of the moral component helps explain leadership dynamics in situations involving ethical
Authenticity
relativism, thus alleviating concerns regarding the presumed moral component of the construct. The overlap
Legitimacy
between leaders' and followers' value systems leads to impressions of authenticity, even in cases in which there
are no clear universal moral standards. An authentic person's behavior cannot be labeled as “leadership” unless it
is embraced by a follower who grants moral legitimacy to the leader. We then discuss the implications of our
study for scholars and practitioners.

Introduction
In a recent review of authentic and transformational leadership,
Banks, McCauley, Gardner, and Guler (2016) invite further refinement
of the components of authentic leadership (AL). The authors assert that
current definitions of AL fail to clearly explain these components. The
first studies of AL sought to describe “good” or “moral” transforma-
tional leadership. The term “authenticity” was employed to describe the
difference between “authentic transformational leadership” grounded
in moral foundations versus “pseudo-transformational leadership”
based on deception and manipulation (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). On
one hand, authentic transformational leadership was built on the moral
character of leaders, their ethical values, and on the ethical nature of
the interaction between leaders and their followers. On the other hand,
inauthentic or pseudo-transformational leaders were described as
“captains who sail under false colors … spiritual leaders who are false
prophets” (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999: p. 188).
The “authentic leadership” construct has transcended its link to
transformational leadership and it is now acknowledged that authentic
leaders are not necessarily transformational (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans,
May, & Walumbwa, 2005). Transformational leaders rely on inspira-
tional appeals, intellectual stimulation, and individualized considera-
tion to motivate followers to internalize desired values (Bass, 1998).
Authentic leaders rely more on their self-awareness and transparency in
relation to their followers (Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005). Con-
sequently, AL has become a stand-alone concept.
AL research is characterized by a thorough analysis of the traits and
behaviors of leaders in addition to focusing on outcomes on followers
and organizations (for example, Cianci, Hannah, Roberts, & Tsakumis,
2014; Gardner et al., 2005). Similar to other strands of leadership re-
search, little work has focused on understanding followers' processes. In
this paper, we focus on the role of followers from a legitimacy per-
spective, and explain how they use evaluative judgments to legitimize
authentic leaders. In so doing, we contribute to the literature in three
ways. First, we participate in the growing movement to understand
follower processes in leadership. We argue that AL is not a leadership
style per se, but an outcome of a process co-created by leader-follower
interaction. Accordingly, we elaborate on our definition of AL:
Authentic leadership represents legitimated follower perceptions of a
leader's authenticity which are activated by moral judgments.
Second, we explore how authentic relationships develop through
explicating the role of legitimacy because there is still a lot to be
learned about the way legitimation occurs (Maclean, Harvey, & Chia,
2012). Finally, we explain how such a perspective helps aspiring lea-
ders better understand the legitimation processes involved in leadership
situations.
In what follows, we present various popular definitions of AL,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: yusuf.sidani@aub.edu.lb (Y.M. Sidani), growe@ivey.uwo.ca (W.G. Rowe).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.04.005
Received 15 December 2016; Received in revised form 24 April 2018; Accepted 26 April 2018
1048-9843/ © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Sidani, Y.M., The Leadership Quarterly (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.04.005
 Y.M. Sidani, W.G. Rowe

Table 1
Definitions of authentic leadership.
Title Date Key term(s) in definition of authentic leadership and/or authentic leaders Defining property

Style Trait Antecedents Outcomes Moral

Henderson & Hoy (p. 67–68) 1983 Salience of self over role … non-manipulation of followers. ✓ ✓
Bhindi & Duigan (p. 119) 1997 Authentic leaders are courageous … visionary leadership … [they] help others grow. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Begley (p. 353) 2001 Professionally effective, ethically sound, and consciously reflective practices. ✓ ✓ ✓
George (p. 12) 2003 Use their natural abilities … lead with purpose … build enduring relationships. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Luthans & Avolio (p. 243) 2003 A process that [draws from positive psychological capacities and] results in both greater self-awareness and positive behaviors on the part of leaders ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
and associates, fostering positive self-development.
Gardner et al. (p. 344) 2005 Genuine leaders who lead by example in fostering healthy ethical climates characterized by transparency, trust, integrity, and high moral standards ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Ilies et al. (p. 376) 2005 Authentic leaders, by expressing their true self in daily life live a good life … results in [leader's and followers'] eudaemonic well-being). ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Shamir & Eilam (p. 399) 2005 Salience of leadership role in their self concept … Self-concept clarity … self-concordant goals … behavior consistency with self-concept ✓ ✓
George & Sims (p. xxxi) 2007 Engender trust and develop genuine connections with others … are able to motivate others … more concerned about serving others ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Wood (p. 10) 2007 Using transparency, altruistic actions, and behavioral consistency to direct the activities of a group toward a shared goal. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Walumbwa et al. (p. 94) 2008 Leader behavior that draws upon … positive psychological capacities … to foster greater self-awareness, an internalized moral perspective, balanced ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
processing of information, and relational transparency.
Whitehead (p. 850) 2009 [A]n authentic leaders is … self-aware, humble …, always seeking improvement … fosters high degrees of trust … [builds] an ethical and moral ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
framework.

2
Sosik & Cameron (p. 253–254) 2010 Display of the behaviors of idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration in a way that is ✓ ✓
true to the self and others.
Bishop (p. 5) 2013 [Authentic leadership} is comprised of much more than being true to oneself. Authenticity involves integrity, ethics, morals, values, self, ✓ ✓ ✓
relationships, and learning … is more than just a style of leadership.
Černe et al. (p. 65) 2013 A construct consistent of three dimensions: self-awareness, self-regulation, and positive modeling. ✓ ✓
Fields (p. 133) 2013 The leader comes into being as authentic in the context of the follower relationship … amid a complex array of variables … which are beyond the ✓
leader's control.
Harré (p. 120) 2013 The attempt to … encourage others to experience [various types] of knowing. ✓ ✓ ✓
Nicholson & Carroll (p. 298) 2013 Authenticity as a social virtue, a series of dialogues … an engagement or call to action, and a relational and deeply embedded way of being in the ✓ ✓ ✓
world.
Wilson (p. 60) 2013 A greater emphasis on relationships, accessibility and egalitarian values ✓ ✓
Gardiner et al. (p. 219) 2014 Inclusiveness and moral purpose, resiliency, and an ethic of connectedness with the greater community … a democratic participatory form of ✓ ✓ ✓
leadership.
Jagha (p. 36–37) 2014 The exhibition of specific open and ethical leader behavior that accomplishes information sharing and subordinate participation in decision-making. ✓ ✓ ✓
Černe et al. (p. 466) 2014 A collective product created by the leader–follower interaction; the mutual understanding of situational imperatives. ✓ ✓
Leroy et al. (p. 1680) 2015 Originates from authentic functioning … aimed at the development of followers. ✓ ✓
Stander et al. (p. 2) 2015 A leadership style that includes positive leader capacities and a mature organizational leadership culture. ✓ ✓ ✓
Wright (p. 79) 2015 Authentic leadership is defined by the individual through their personal life experiences. ✓ ✓
Caza et al. (p. 520) 2015 A multidimensional construct that includes transparency, information processing, self-awareness and morality. ✓ ✓ ✓
Valsania et al. (p. 134) 2016 A leader's behavior pattern that achieves a performance beyond expectations. ✓ ✓
Lee (p. 17) 2017 … a style of leadership that is both personally distinctive and organisationally attuned. ✓ ✓ ✓
The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Y.M. Sidani, W.G. Rowe
elaborate on some of the challenges facing such conceptualizations, and
zoom in on the ethical dimension in AL. A proposed model of AL is then
examined by elaborating on the concept of legitimacy and how it
contributes to a better understanding of AL. We conclude by addressing
implications for research and practice.
Definitions of AL
Extending the review done by Gardner, Cogliser, Davis, and Dickens
(2011), Table 1 updates definitions of AL. The table shows disagree-
ments over what AL really means; those disagreements reflect problems
in construct definition. Good definitions need to specify the construct's
conceptual theme by clearly distinguishing them from other related
constructs (MacKenzie, 2003). Problems in construct definition, as
MacKenzie emphasizes, lead to dire consequences manifested in defi-
cient measures and difficulties in specifying how the construct of in-
terest should relate to its measures.
Table 1 shows that many AL conceptualizations, including the most
dominant ones, contain outcomes in the definitions. Defining a concept
by its outcomes is not useful for a variety of reasons (Mackenzie, 2003).
Such definitions do not tell us much about the nature of the construct
and what it means; it becomes extremely difficult to distinguish the
construct from its effects (Hughes, Lee, Tian, Newman, & Legood,
2018). Ilies et al. (2005), for example, define AL in relation to two
philosophical approaches to human (leader and follower) well-being:
hedonism and eudaemonia. After defining authenticity, the authors
contend that “authentic leaders, by expressing their true self in daily
life live a good life (in an Aristotelian way), and this process results in
self-realization (eudaemonic well-being) on the part of the leaders, and
in positive effects on followers' eudaemonic well-being” (Ilies et al., p.
376). Within the context of positive organizational scholarship, this is
an interesting and insightful understanding. It proposes that AL, from a
developmental perspective, leads to positive outcomes on leaders and
followers. Yet in terms of grasping the real nature of AL, we are not able
to distinguish between the phenomenon of interest and its effects. For
example, what would we call a type of leadership that fulfills part of
that understanding (quoted above) and not the other? More specifically,
if we take the word “positive” out of the above definition, would that
mean that a leader becomes less authentic? Does a leader lose au-
thenticity if, despite expressing his/her true self, followers do not ex-
perience “eudaemonic well-being”? How about leaders who by “ex-
pressing their true self in daily life live a good life, … and this process
results” in some recognizable – though not necessarily positive-effects
on followers? Are those leaders stripped from the label authentic, not
because of who they are, but because of variations in follower responses
to this leadership situation? Would it be possible that those individuals
be perceived as both leaders (some people follow them) and authentic
(true to themselves), but not a combination thereof (authentic leaders)?
Luthans and Avolio's (2003) definition (2003) of AL describes traits
(such as “genuine, reliable, trustworthy”) and behaviors (such as “gives
priority to developing employees”). This definition also explicates AL's
outcomes (for example, “positive self-development”), and explains
what appear to be the sources of AL and its effects. Yet, it is still not
clear what exactly is meant by AL? The antecedents and outcomes are
needed to understand the connections among various constructs and
variables, yet this does not contribute much to our understanding of the
core construct of interest (Antonakis, Bastardoz, Jacquart, & Shamir,
2016). Another closely-related popular definition (Walumbwa, Avolio,
Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008) proposes four primary compo-
nents of AL that have been operationalized by the Authentic Leadership
Questionnaire (ALQ). This definition refers to “a pattern of leader be-
havior that draws upon and promotes both positive psychological capacities
and a positive ethical climate, to foster greater self-awareness, an inter-
nalized moral perspective, balanced processing of information, and rela-
tional transparency on the part of leaders working with followers, fostering
positive self-development” (p. 94). This definition is overwhelmed with
3
The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
outcomes. One phrase that hints to the nature of the construct is
“pattern of leader behavior” although defining a leadership construct as
such “is not very useful because all types of leadership are predicated
on processes, behaviors, and actions” (Antonakis et al., 2016, p. 302).
The other descriptors seem to refer to antecedents or to outcomes
(greater self-awareness, positive self-development, etc.). This, again,
seems to violate the proper definition of a construct (Antonakis et al.,
2016; MacKenzie, 2003).
Other less popular conceptualizations of AL include that of Shamir
and Eilam (2005) who proposed four attributes of authentic leaders: 1)
the leadership role is salient in their self-concept, 2) they have a clear
self-concept revolving around deeply held convictions, 3) their goals
are consistent with core values and interests, and 4) their behaviors are
consistent with their self-concept. This perspective does not assume the
“internalized moral perspective” advanced by the earlier definition.
More recently, Černe, Jaklič, and Škerlavaj (2013) advanced the pro-
position that AL is a construct revolving around self-awareness, self-
regulation, and positive modeling. They assert the positive outcomes
associated with the construct such as individual creativity and team
innovation. Interestingly, Černe, Dimovski, Marič, Penger, and
Škerlavaj (2014) propose an alternative definition of AL where it be-
comes a “mutual understanding of situational imperatives” (p. 466)
thereby giving a larger role for followers in the process. Some studies
have referred to those relational aspects, though still asserting that AL
describes a “process of influence” that aims to develop followers (Leroy,
Anseel, Gardner, & Sels, 2015). Other studies that emphasized rela-
tional aspects remain in the minority, and are in need of further de-
velopment (Ellen III, Douglas, Ferris, & Perrewé, 2013; Fields, 2013;
Goffee & Jones, 2013; Nicholson & Carroll, 2013).
Table 1 illustrates that most (86%) of the understandings of AL
present it as a style of leadership, 61% included a positive moral
component in the definition, and 50% included outcomes in the defi-
nition. Dominant definitions approached AL as a style of leadership
engulfed in a moral setting, leading to positive outcomes. Most AL
scholarship has thus defined it as a form of a behavioral pattern (Caza,
Bagozzi, Woolley, Levy, & Barker Caza, 2010; Walumbwa et al., 2008)
or leadership style (for example, Stander, De Beer, & Stander, 2015).
Stander et al. (2015), for example, posited that it is “a leadership style
that includes positive leader capacities and a mature organisational
leadership culture” (p. 2). This definition, based on the one by Luthans
and Avolio (2003), seems to define the construct by drawing on other
related constructs in a way where we are not able to clearly pinpoint the
core construct of interest (MacKenzie, 2003). As such, the authentic
leader is seen as a “self-contained and self-controlled” person (Tomkins
& Nicholds, 2017), a heroic figure, who can initiate change in the or-
ganization and positively impact followers. Other conceptualizations
advance definitions of what AL is supposed to achieve (for example,
“positive self-development”, “building followers' strengths”, “greater
self-awareness”). Again, this is not a precise way to define a construct,
as a useful definition requires that the construct is independent of its
outcomes (Antonakis et al., 2016). Moreover, it is important when
describing a leadership construct to differentiate between what a re-
searcher hopes to occur and how a certain construct operates in reality,
otherwise “we will construct theories that might not be counterfactually
challenged” (Antonakis, 2017, p. 69). Defining AL in terms of desired
outcomes disguises an admirable longing for healthier leadership si-
tuations. This, however, does not help in describing how leadership
operates in reality. Although many conceptualizations of AL have
suggested that it leads to positive organizational outcomes, such caus-
ality cannot be established. Sometimes leaders who are true to them-
selves perform counter to organizational and communal interests (Ellen
III et al., 2013).
A related point, evident from the table, is the tendency to define AL
in terms of a moral component. Some later conceptualizations and
criticisms have moved away from including a moral dimension, yet
these later conceptualizations are still in the minority. What is also
Y.M. Sidani, W.G. Rowe
noticeable is that scholars have been increasingly addressing the need
to understand the relational aspects of AL, and not just the supposed
traits and behaviors of leaders. While the role of followers was dis-
cussed in many of the primary works in the field (for example, Avolio &
Gardner, 2005), AL definitions have remained overwhelmingly cen-
tered around the leader.
Challenges facing AL
Scholars have identified problems with some multi-dimensional
leadership constructs (Banks, Gooty, Ross, Williams, & Harrington,
2018; van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013) that are also relevant to AL. We
focus below on three connected problems. These are: (1) problems in
the theoretical conceptualization of AL, (2) issues of empirical re-
dundancy that have been raised by recent research (Banks et al., 2016;
Hoch, Bommer, Dulebohn, & Wu, 2018), and (3) the overwhelming
tendency to model AL as a leadership style responsible for positive
outcomes even though it is not exogenous (Antonakis, 2017; Antonakis
et al., 2016; van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013).
Problems with the theoretical conceptualization of AL
Construct proliferation is one major challenge in organizational
research (Le, Schmidt, Harter, & Lauver, 2010). This refers to the pro-
blem of some constructs lacking discriminant validity in relation to
other constructs. In other words, a new proposed construct may be si-
milar to an existing one, thus rendering the new one largely redundant.
Construct redundancy is an acute problem in leadership theorization
that needs to be addressed (Banks et al., 2018). The emergence of
various intimately-connected normative leadership constructs runs the
risk of advancing an ideological agenda (Antonakis, 2017) where, in-
stead of understanding what actually happens in leadership situations,
scholars become more interested in prescribing how leaders ought to
behave. AL has been argued to overlap with many positive leadership
constructs including ethical leadership—discussed in the next
section—(Brown & Mitchell, 2010; Brown & Trevino, 2006; Rowe,
2014) and transformational leadership (Antonakis, 2017; Banks et al.,
2016). Disagreements over the boundaries of AL (Cooper, Scandura, &
Schriesheim, 2005; Peus, Wesche, Streicher, Braun, & Frey, 2012) have
constrained the ability to offer a precise understanding of what the
construct really means. This confusion spills over to problems in con-
struct measurement (MacKenzie, 2003).
In addition, there is confusion regarding whether AL is equated
with, a subset of, or only a description of, good transformational lea-
dership (Banks et al., 2016; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Walumbwa et al.,
2008). Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, and May (2004) consider
AL to be a root construct that “can incorporate transformational lea-
dership” (p. 805–806). Recent studies indicate that the two constructs
overlap significantly suggesting one is not adding much validity beyond
the other (Banks et al., 2016). Similar to problems associated with
understandings of charismatic leadership (Antonakis et al., 2016), AL
needs to be clearly separated from transformational leadership, some-
thing that current theorizing has not done.
Another problem pertains to the notion of authenticity meaning
being true to one self. If AL means being true to “one-self”, which self is
it? Tomkins and Nicholds (2017) note that in the modern conceptions of
“self”, there is no single core self (Guignon, 2004); thus there is no
single self to which a person can be “true” to. Multiple selves exist, and
these become activated depending on contextual variables (McConnell,
2011). Accordingly, would the above definition of authenticity “being
true to one-self” need to be amended to include the plural selves? In this
case, which self is the authentic one, or are all of these authentic selves
reflecting different aspects of one's persona?
Some scholars also note that being authentic does not mean acces-
sing a personal inner self, but it actually comes about through sociali-
zation and cultivation (Nicholson & Carroll, 2013). Authenticity
4
The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
“involves the ability to be a reflective individual” (Guignon, 2004, p.
155), a person who is able to operate within the social context. Here
authenticity is seen as a social virtue (Nicholson & Carroll, 2013) and
not a style of leadership. This argument is contrasted with Sparrowe's
(2005) contention that “to thine own self be true” basically reflects a
narcissistic orientation because such a perspective requires acknowl-
edging oneself before acknowledging others. A person who is focused
on his/her inner self misses lots of opportunities in relation to the so-
ciety in which he/she lives, and could end up becoming self-absorbed.
Another criticism pertains to looking at AL as a construct comprised
of several dimensions that can be identified, operationalized, and
measured through an additive model. Edwards (2011) argues that the
growing interest surrounding formative measurement (measures com-
bined together to represent a theoretically meaningful construct) is
misguided. He notes that “[w]hen conceptually distinct measures are
channeled into a single construct, the resulting construct is con-
ceptually ambiguous” (p. 373). Such a problem was highlighted by van
Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013) for transformational leadership where,
in practice, various dimensions are merged to arrive at an under-
standing of the higher order construct. The authors highlighted pro-
blems with such models that apply to AL; even if the sub-dimensions are
conceptualized to be part of the higher order leadership construct, this
is not the only way to understand AL. For example, one dimension (say
an internalized moral perspective) may be theoretically argued to
compensate for the absence of another dimension (say relational
transparency). Various dimensions may interact with each other, which
is a plausible occurrence that has not been sufficiently addressed in AL
literature. Credé and Harms (2015), who examined potential higher
order constructs in organizational sciences, indicate that empirical
support for the AL higher order construct is sparse. They assert that
there is still a need for more substantial evidence before accepting the
claim that a set of related constructs can be incorporated under a
broader label. Those criticisms align with that of Jones and Grint
(2013) who assert that the dominance of a measured multi-dimensional
construct of AL represents a shift in scholarship from trying to under-
stand what AL means and whether it is conceivable, to trying to specify
its measurable components. This leads to the absurd conclusion that a
person who does not pass the ALQ test is considered to be lacking in
authenticity (Jones & Grint, 2013).
Problems of empirical redundancy
Empirical redundancy is connected to the problem of construct
proliferation, but these two phenomena are not the same. In some cases,
two constructs may be conceptually different, yet it is not possible—-
given the available measures—to distinguish between them empirically
(Le et al., 2010). Hoch et al. (2018) studied the incremental variance
explained by AL, beyond what is explained by transformational lea-
dership, across nine criterion measures. The results showed that AL
played an incremental role only for two of the nine measures. In ad-
dition, there were high correlations between transformational leader-
ship and AL. Both of these findings suggest empirical redundancy (and
construct proliferation as discussed earlier). They conclude that AL is of
“limited usefulness” in its current form noting that the empirical evi-
dence does not support the notion that AL offers much beyond what
transformational leadership already does (Hoch et al., 2018).
Banks et al. (2016) also raise concerns about the empirical re-
dundancy of AL. The authors note that, compared to studies which
asserted that AL and transformational leadership are related but distinct
constructs, their study provides evidence to the contrary. The nature of
the relationships between AL and transformational leadership leads to
the conclusion that—in general—neither of the two adds much incre-
mental validity over the other. The study also found high correlations
among the subscales of AL which suggests “weak discriminant and
structural validity” (p. 644). They refer to problems in measurement
tools that do not capture real distinctions among AL sub-factors such as
Y.M. Sidani, W.G. Rowe
the distinction between relational transparency and balanced proces-
sing. Whereas Hoch et al. (2018) are critical of the AL as a construct,
Banks et al. (2016) note that the problem of the overlap between AL
and transformational leadership could be better understood through a
refinement of AL measures (such as the ALQ). In a more recent study,
Banks et al. go further and indicate that “both constructs share sig-
nificant conceptual and empirical space” (2018, p. 246).
Problems with looking at AL as a leadership style
Many understandings of AL, including the early one by Bass and
Steidlmeier (1999), look at it as a style of leadership that impacts or-
ganizational outcomes. As discussed earlier, it is problematic to define a
construct by its outcomes as this does not explain the real nature of that
construct (Antonakis et al., 2016; van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). Ilies
et al. (2005) view “authentic relational orientation” as reflecting a
“style of interaction and exchange” (p. 390). Many studies have also
tackled what is called the “authentic leadership style” and its re-
lationship to various variables of interest (for example, Birkeland
Nielsen, Eid, Mearns, & Larsson, 2013; Boekhorst, 2015; Gatling, Kang,
& Kim, 2016; Zhu, Avolio, Riggio, & Sosik, 2011a). One notable ex-
ception is the one advanced by Shamir and Eilam (2005) who refrained
from including the style of the leader in their conceptualization.
AL measurement and modeling issues suffer from problems similar
to those raised by Antonakis et al. (2016) in relation to charismatic
leadership, and van Knippenberg and Sitkin (2013) in relation to
transformational leadership. AL is not exogenous because it can be
impacted by several other factors that also impact the various depen-
dent variables of relevance. When those other factors are not properly
modeled, the impact of AL on outcomes of relevance would be con-
founded. The AL construct has thus far been overwhelmingly studied as
a style predicting positive work outcomes. The problem with such an
approach is that AL, as an endogenous variable, is an outcome of a
certain process. If this “leadership style” is in fact a dependent variable
of some earlier predictor, which we argue is conceptually the case, then
the impact of AL on certain desired outcomes would be biased and
uninterpretable (Antonakis, 2017).
Antecedents to AL have been examined (Gardner et al., 2011), yet
not many studies investigated the simultaneous impact of such ante-
cedents on the subsequent work outcomes. It is thus important to have a
different approach to the study of AL, not as a style, but as an outcome
in itself. Most definitions of AL refer to it as behaviors “carried by au-
thentic leaders and includes authentic followership” (Price, 2017: p.
16), leading to positive outcomes. Most widespread understandings of
AL suffer from this definitional problem.
In sum, popular conceptualizations of AL resemble, though in a “less
glamorous and polished” way (Wilson, 2013), the conceptualization
behind charismatic leadership, which re-establishes leader-centrism at
the heart of organizational functioning (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2013)
impacting organizational outcomes. Such an approach exaggerates the
role of the leader in impacting organizational change. Despite calls for
better understanding for followership processes (Avolio & Gardner,
2005; Leroy et al., 2015), AL research has mostly been centered around
the leader, his/her “self”, attributes, and behaviors, in addition to the
expected outcomes. This leadership-centrism has significant implica-
tions in that it gives prime importance to the self of the leader, not only
compared to other factors such as followers and contingencies, but also
to other aspects linked to the leader such as expected role requirements
(Blom & Lundgren, 2016). Critics note that such emphasis on the lea-
der's “self” results in an organization where constituents are dominated
by the leader eventually breeding a “sick organization” (Ford &
Harding, 2011).
Ethics in AL: issues and challenges
Beyond the above challenges to the AL construct, we focus in this
5
The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
section on the ethical dimension in AL. Both the "internal moral per-
spective" and "relational transparency" have been argued to be key di-
mensions of AL (Gardner et al., 2005). This inclusion, however, pro-
duces several problems discussed below.
Authentic leadership and ethical leadership: subsets of each other?
Authentic and ethical leadership have been proposed to share
common features (Neubert, Wu, & Roberts, 2013), yet the boundaries
between them are still not clear. Much of AL scholarship has advanced
moral orientation as a key ingredient of AL. In describing the decision-
making processes of authentic leaders, May, Chan, Hodges, and Avolio
(2003) argue that authentic leaders can recognize moral dilemmas and
act authentically. Authentic leaders present live cases of high moral
character (Gardner et al., 2005; May et al., 2003). Some researchers,
however, argue in reverse. They maintain that authenticity, as part of
character, is a necessary but not sufficient condition of ethical leader-
ship (Quick, Macik-Frey, & Cooper, 2007; Resick et al., 2011). Under
this perspective, a leader cannot really be ethical, unless he/she is au-
thentic.
A contrasting view that embodies an amoral perspective proposes
that leaders may have a value-based cause, but it is not necessarily
represented in moral terms (Shamir & Eilam, 2005). Authentic leaders
have deep convictions, but such beliefs and ensuing behaviors are not
necessarily grounded in an ethical perspective. Sparrowe (2005) in-
dicates that claiming a specific type of leadership to be intrinsically
moral is not only difficult to falsify empirically, but also “exceptionally
difficult to argue logically” (p. 423). He argues that an authentic “self”
looks inward before considering others and, as such, derives more from
narcissism than from anything else.
Likewise, Price (2003) talks about leaders who act immorally not
because of self-interest, but because they are committed to certain va-
lues that overrule accepted moral axioms. Accordingly, their immoral
acts do not mean that they were not “true to themselves” when they
committed such acts. Some leaders may be blinded by narcissistic be-
liefs that they are excluded from moral norms that apply to others.
Algera and Lips-Wiersma (2012) also take issue with the ethical un-
derpinnings of AL because what is ethical might vary from one in-
dividual or context to the next. More recently - beyond the four sub-
components advanced by Gardner et al. (2005) - emotional sincerity
(another sub-dimension closely related to ethical functioning) was also
argued to be part of AL (Caza, Zhang, Wang, & Bai, 2015). This again
illustrates a level of disagreement about the nature and the degree of
overlap between AL and ethical leadership.
An implicit assumption of a “universal moral order”
The problem of relativity of morals poses additional challenges.
Many AL leadership scholars have been interested in developing a
theoretical understanding of how leaders “ought” to behave, rather
than who they are (Antonakis, 2017). This raises concerns regarding the
potential for a false moral universalism standpoint. Most of leadership
theory has been developing in the United States (Walumbwa et al.,
2008), and there is a need to enrich scholarship by including diverse
contexts (Wilson, 2014), including those which may advance different
moral axioms. Cooper et al. (2005) assert that including the “moral
element” in current definitions of AL ignores the fact that behaviors are
shaped by culture. What some people consider moral in their context
would not always be considered so in other contexts. Issues of moral
relativism pose questions as to what exactly is meant by an internal
moral perspective and its universality. Do leaders who commit to values
not corresponding with self-disclosure (which is an important sub-di-
mension of relational transparency), for example, qualify as in-
authentic? Indeed, studies have shown cross-cultural differences in self-
disclosure patterns. The Chinese were found to disclose less than their
American counterparts across a variety of topics when dealing with
Y.M. Sidani, W.G. Rowe
various target persons (Chen, 1995). This revealed discrepancy between
the two cultures is consistent with studies that assert that members of
collective cultures are less inclined, compared to individuals from in-
dividualistic cultures, to divulge information about themselves,
(Johnson & Van de Vijver, 2003; Smith & Bond, 1998).
The authenticity/leadership paradox
Scholars have addressed a paradox in AL between being authentic as
a “person”, and being authentic as a “leader”. Leadership includes a
degree of self-monitoring that could be viewed to be incongruent with
authenticity (Gardner & Cogliser, 2008). An authentic person is per-
ceived to be the author of him or herself (Schmid, 2001), a person who
prioritizes accountability to his/her internal standards (Tedeschi,
1986). An authentic person's involvement in life comes from “being”,
not from outside pressures or influences (Andersson & Andersson, 2005;
Lenton, Bruder, Slabu, & Sedikides, 2013). In a way, this individual is
understood to be a person who is more concerned about reflecting inner
thoughts rather than the appropriateness of those thoughts to the sur-
rounding social milieu (Bowen, 2010). This type of indifference to the
demands of the society sometimes makes the authentic person free from
its institutions (Cohen, 2005). Freedom is key to the authentic person
and he/she is even regarded as “crazy in a distorted society” (Shi,
2007). In line with Nietzsche's conception, the authentic person is
thought to be a person who creates his/her own values rather than
succumbing to the values of others (Nicholas, 2013).
When an authentic person emerges as leader, a relational aspect
enters into the equation. At a certain level, leaders have to come across
as people who interact and/or engage in relations with subordinates.
Authentic leaders have been proposed in prior research to enter into
relational dialogue with their environments remaining “open to rela-
tional input” (Leroy, Palanski, & Simons, 2012). Yet such an assertion
about the openness of authentic leaders does not negate the fact that
authenticity entails a deep level of commitment to one's real values.
One response to this criticism is that the authentic leader cannot be
equated to a dogmatic leader who is totally rigid and uncompromising
(Leroy et al., 2012). Yet, if authentic leaders are true to themselves and
to the values they embrace, wouldn't they become less likely to change
those values? As we discuss the example of Nelson Mandela later, we
adopt the view that, though authentic leaders are deeply committed to
their values, they are not necessarily dogmatic (Leroy et al., 2012).
A model of authentic leadership
The role of followers in assigning authenticity to leaders remains
under-investigated. We elaborate here on our earlier definition of AL
which is legitimated follower perceptions of a leader's authenticity which are
activated by moral judgments. We argue that the legitimacy given to
leaders—and not morality per se—is a key pillar in AL. Ascriptions of
authenticity are not different than other types of ascriptions discussed
in leadership research in which perceptions of authenticity stem from
the manner in which followers see the leader. Similar to the manner in
which charisma is accorded (Gardner & Avolio, 1998), authenticity is
granted such that the leader's self-system, along with followers' as-
criptions, contribute to the phenomenon we call AL.
In trying to further understand and reconcile the opposing view-
points discussed above, we present a model based on the moral di-
mension of AL and legitimacy (Fig. 1). Legitimacy explains why some
followers would describe their leader as authentic and others would
clearly think otherwise. Legitimacy has been defined by Suchman
(1995) to refer to a generalized perception that the actions of a certain
entity are “desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially con-
structed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions” (p. 574). This
definition refers to legitimacy accorded to “entities”, yet it is widely
accepted that this construct applies to a broad range of such entities
including leaders (Tost, 2011). The model briefly describes the role of
6
The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
the leader, and then elaborates more on the role of followers and the
processes leading to the creation of AL.
The leader
The first component in the moral dimension is the leader's moral
system (left side of Fig. 1). This component has been well articulated in
prior research, so we only refer to it briefly. A leader's moral system
develops from a host of sources, including early socialization and cul-
tural conditioning (Luthans, Norman, & Hughes, 2006; Mohwald,
2000). Many leaders, particularly those who properly consider their
followers, tend to operate out of personal value systems (Taylor &
Pattie, 2014). Such systems include the stage of moral development,
identity and self-concept, moral emotions, moral capacity, moral effi-
cacy, moral resiliency, and moral courage (Hannah, Avolio, &
Walumbwa, 2011b; Hannah, Lester, & Vogelgesang, 2005; May et al.,
2003; Michie & Gooty, 2005; Novicevic, Harvey, Ronald, & Brown-
Radford, 2006; Shao, Aquino, & Freeman, 2008; Zhu, Riggio, Avolio, &
Sosik, 2011b). Leaders' moral systems eventually impact their modeling
behaviors that are directed at followers or potential followers.
AL research has been dominated by the trait approach as far as the
moral component is concerned, and as such, it is prone to the same
limitations (Shao et al., 2008). The moral dimension of the leader's
character cannot, on its own, explain the emergence of AL. Hannah
et al. (2005) propose that authentic leaders may be able to exert a
positive influence on followers in terms of their social identity. We
argue that such influence cannot be realized without followers ac-
cording legitimacy to those leaders. In line with what Suchman (1995)
indicates about legitimation, there is much that leaders can do in the
legitimation process. Yet, this agency of leaders is constrained by con-
textual factors including the way followers perceive the relationship, its
goals, and its underlying values.
The follower
Avolio et al. (2004) assert that the process linking AL to followers'
attitudes and behaviors must be better understood. This includes un-
derstanding how the value systems of leaders become related to the
value systems of followers (Ilies et al., 2005). Thus, followers are not
passive players in AL. Similar to other leadership situations, it is ex-
pected that followers would have specific values and motives that fa-
cilitate the process of leadership. Followers' perceptions of a leader's
deeply held values and behaviors help in the formation of follower
evaluations of the leader.
Interactive antecedents to legitimacy
Passive evaluative mode
A central component of leadership involves the construction of le-
gitimacy. To illuminate this construct, we draw on prior legitimacy
research (Stryker, 2000; Suchman, 1995; Tost, 2011) to apply legiti-
macy judgments in a leadership situation. In granting legitimacy, fol-
lowers can have either a passive or active evaluative judgment mode
(Tost, 2011). A judgment refers to evaluation of evidence in drawing a
conclusion (Nugent, 2013). In the passive mode, followers rely on va-
lidity cues or signals in the environment that support granting legiti-
macy to the leader. Because followers sometimes do not want to exert
the cognitive effort of making calculated judgments, they refer to such
cues. The validity cues may be strong enough to validate granting such
legitimacy, prompting less reliance on personal evaluations. An ex-
ample of such cues may be a history of success and collaboration which
would result in granting legitimacy to the leader.
Active evaluative mode
In other instances, followers pursue a more active evaluative judg-
ment mode. Followers observe leaders, form perceptions about their
Y.M. Sidani, W.G. Rowe
Fig. 1. Legitimacy formation in authentic leadership.
behaviors, and make instrumental, relational, or moral evaluative
judgments. Drawing on earlier social psychology research (Hollander,
1980; Tyler, 1997), Tost (2011) focuses on these three dimensions to
explain the content of legitimacy judgments. First, the instrumental di-
mension explains how individuals grant legitimacy to social entities
because such entities advance their personal interests. In ascribing le-
gitimacy within leadership situations, followers may rely primarily on
instrumental evaluations. Based on the above, we argue that when
followers are in an active evaluative judgment mode, leaders who are
able to advance the personal interests of these followers will be more
likely to be granted legitimacy by those followers.
There has been growing attention to group processes in which group
membership plays a significant role in the leadership equation (Hogg,
2001). Because of this growing attention, we argue that the second
dimension, relational evaluations, explains how a person grants legiti-
macy to a social entity based on that entity's promotion of a person's
identity by means of giving respect, status, and self-worth within a
relevant group. In leadership contexts, the follower, in an active eva-
luative judgment mode, enters into relational evaluations of the leader
and his/her behavior. How the follower is situated vis-à-vis the leader
(for example, in-group/out-group membership) impacts whether—and
the process by which—legitimacy is granted. Earlier research, for ex-
ample, has shown that people's self-evaluations are impacted by how in-
group authorities treat them (Smith, Tyler, Huo, Ortiz, & Lind, 1998).
Followers sometimes view the leader within a social context as a
person who affirms their social identities (Haslam & Platow, 2001;
Steffens, Mols, Haslam, & Okimoto, 2016; van Knippenberg, van
Knippenberg, De Cremer, & Hogg, 2004). In this case, relational eva-
luations are intensified resulting in granting legitimacy to the leader.
When a person is perceived to be a better embodiment of the distinc-
tiveness of the group, he/she becomes more influential and legitimacy
7
The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
is granted. If the leader-follower relationship occurs in a context in
which the follower relies heavily on the group for a sense of identity,
the relational dimension assumes primary importance in the granting of
legitimacy. Social identity theory suggests that one of the basic motives
for identification lies in the need for self-enhancement where group
membership becomes rewarding in a way that elevates a person's
feeling of self-worth (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005). The self-concept lit-
erature asserts that one of the ways by which people self-regulate oc-
curs at the relational level (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). They understand
themselves in relation to an important other (a leader in this case), and
would develop a sense of self-worth based on engagement with him/her
(Lord & Brown, 2001).
The third dimension, moral evaluations, pertains to people granting
legitimacy to social institutions that promote values consistent with
their own moral convictions. Legitimacy is thus granted on the basis of
moral grounds (Scott, 2013; Suchman, 1995; Tost, 2011). People see
that a certain institution is upholding moral values or positions that
they embrace, which acts as a catalyst for ascribing legitimacy. With
regard to leadership, when followers see that the leader is advancing
positions of moral relevance consistent with their own, they would
construct evaluative judgments of moral significance. In the case of AL,
moral evaluations take on a primary role in judgment formation pro-
cesses. Indeed, in the case of the moral evaluation dimension, in-
dividuals' own moral values explain how they behave when reacting to
authority and rules (Tyler, 2006), and the interactive effect of an active
evaluative mode with moral evaluations leads to legitimacy.
Value congruence
We propose that AL dynamics are more powerful when commitment
to values is part of the self-concept of the follower in addition to that of
the leader. Although leaders might be understood to develop their
Y.M. Sidani, W.G. Rowe
followers' self-concepts, the starting point of the followers' self-con-
cept—and specifically the moral self-identity of the followers—is key to
understanding the dynamics of the leadership situation. Indeed, mor-
ality concerns are frequently more intense than instrumentality and
relational concerns, although these frameworks are not mutually ex-
clusive (Tost, 2011). (The thicker line in Fig. 1 between moral eva-
luations and legitimacy emphasizes the primary role of moral evalua-
tions in granting legitimacy in AL).
Leader-follower value congruence
One highly contentious issue in AL research is that of leader-fol-
lower value congruence. Most of the prevalent research rooted in social
psychology asserts that value congruence needs to occur at one point or
another (Banks et al., 2016). Other strands of AL research rooted in
philosophy argue that value congruence is not necessary. Some scholars
documented positive outcomes for leader-follower value congruence
(Brown & Trevino, 2006; Meglino, Ravlin, & Adkins, 1989). Other
contrasting studies did not uncover positive outcomes, and some even
detected some negative results in terms of performance quality and
quantity (Meglino et al., 1989).
Within the field of AL research, Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) assert
that there is much “moral justification” for value congruence to occur
between the leader and followers leading to better organizational out-
comes. Avolio et al. (2004) suggested that when leaders put across their
values to followers, the building blocks for intimacy and trust are in-
stituted. Similarly, Ilies et al. (2005) proposed that value congruence
mediates the relationship between authentic leadership and identifi-
cation. This is also proposed by Avolio and Gardner (2005) who agree
that open and positive leader-follower exchanges result in a relation-
ship characterized by “deeply held and overlapping values” (p. 327).
Those shared values eventually lead to identification with the leader
(Gill & Caza, 2018).
Price (2003) noted that the leader follower relations within AL do
not necessarily result in value congruence because followers may not be
cognizant that values advanced by the leader match their own. But
beyond follower failure to recognize the possibility of value overlap,
some scholars have a fundamentally different perspective as to the
necessity of value congruence. Algera and Lips-Wiersma (2012) note
that the nature of existential authenticity makes it unlikely for an au-
thentic individual to adopt what seems meaningful to others but not to
them. Those scholars do not rule out situations when some or many
values overlap, yet they judge that such instances by nature of au-
thenticity are unlikely to occur.
Critics also argue that embracing value congruence could compro-
mise follower agency. If leaders impose their own values on followers,
the former would be treating the latter as a means to an end (the end
being the adoption of leader values). Lawler and Ashman (2012) note
that treating people as a means to a leader's ends—by defini-
tion—renders the leader inauthentic. Leaders, in this case, would be
imposing, rather than accepting, their own understanding on other
people. When followers have to internalize the leader's values, they are
put in a position where they cannot critically examine, contest, or
challenge those values (Ford & Harding, 2011). One counter-argument
to these criticisms is that there is the possibility that AL could operate
within transparent cultures where followers are able to espouse their
own values (Hannah, Avolio, & May, 2011a) without losing their sense
of agency.
The agentic power of followers becomes salient as they become
more able to infer the congruence between the leader's values and their
own values. In the case of value congruence, given the leader's afore-
mentioned moral system, followers experience moral identification
with their leaders (Ilies et al., 2005). When followers perceive a high
degree of value congruence, they are more likely to ascribe moral le-
gitimacy to leaders, which explains the ensuing perceptions of AL.
Value congruence would exist either at the outset or after a negotiation
8
The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
period. When followers perceive high value congruence, they are more
likely to embrace the leader and grant moral legitimacy. In cases in
which there is a lack of perceived value congruence, potential followers
are less likely to accord moral legitimacy. Thus, the impact of our
antecedents (instrumental, relational, and moral evaluations) on moral
legitimacy is tempered by follower perceptions of leader-follower value
congruence.
In sum, in understanding leadership as a relational phenomenon, it
follows that an authentic person's behavior cannot be labeled as “lea-
dership” unless it is embraced by a follower who grants moral legiti-
macy to the leader. Such a follower would ascribe moral legitimacy to a
person with whom he/she has a degree of match in value systems, ei-
ther at the outset, or through a leader's ability to develop the followers'
values and convictions. In a relational context, individuals—as au-
thentic as they may be—cannot be ascribed moral legitimacy unless
there is (1) a proactive desire to lead and “being a leader” thus becomes
part of their self-identity, and (2) a degree of congruence between the
leader's values and follower's values. With respect to this assertion, we
make the following three assumptions:
First, by embedding it as part of the model, we are asserting that
value congruence can increase perceptions of legitimacy, although
value congruence is not a necessary condition for generalized legiti-
macy. Value congruence has the potential to increase moral legitimacy,
but there are other means to grant legitimacy to a leader. We are
adopting here the view that ascriptions of moral legitimacy helps in
creating legitimacy although it is not a necessary precondition.
However, we argue that legitimacy based on moral evaluations (where
morality is defined by the degree of moral space that the evaluator and
the evaluated share), compared to other types of evaluations, are most
salient in AL.
Second, the above assertion does not mean that people with values
different than their followers cannot be leaders per se. Followers might
decide to grant legitimacy based on instrumental concerns. In other
words, followers could legitimate their leaders based on a belief that the
latter are advancing their interests. Likewise, followers may grant le-
gitimacy based on relational aspects.
Third, leader-follower value congruence does not mean domination
of a leader's perspective over followers and their value systems. The
model suggests that leaders and followers co-create the phenomenon
known as AL. When followers withhold according legitimacy, they
are—in fact—active agents in the relationship.
Legitimacy
Legitimacy is thus an outcome of judgments of followers. Earlier
leadership studies emphasized the role of the legitimacy in producing
the leadership phenomenon (Chemers, 2000; Hollander, 1964). Ap-
plying the above definition (Suchman, 1995) to leaders, legitimacy
represents the generalized perception that a leader's actions are desir-
able and adequate, in effect rendering the person's leadership as ap-
propriate and acceptable. Legitimacy thus is the belief that leaders are
worthy to direct followers' behaviors, seek their compliance, and that
they (leaders) “ought to be deferred to … and their decisions accepted”
(Tyler, 2006, p. 379–380). Legitimacy is socially constructed and le-
gitimation requires a process of negotiation and dialogue (Bell &
Hughes-Jones, 2008). Legitimacy is a “kind of social credit” that a
leader accumulates and spends “much like money” (Hollander, 1964;
Michener & Burt, 1975). Legitimation is a process that refers to the
collective “making of meaning” (Neilsen & Rao, 1987, p. 524) between
leaders and followers.
Legitimacy has been used in the field of social psychology to explain
an array of dynamics in social institutions. It is thought to be important
for organizational performance (although there is a dearth of research
to establish this causal link because of the endogeneity problem), and
entities become less understandable, less meaningful, and less credible
without legitimacy (Suchman, 1995). It is not easily obtained, it is more
Y.M. Sidani, W.G. Rowe
difficult to manipulate, and it requires special mechanisms to uphold
and sustain (Patriotta, Gond, & Schultz, 2011). There are different types
of organizational legitimacy, which can be applied in explaining how
practices and processes become institutionalized (Suchman, 1995). A
key component of legitimacy lies in the social recognition conferred on
entities based on their ability to meet norms and expectations
(Deephouse & Carter, 2005), which is usually related to their ability,
expertise, or knowhow to deliver as expected. Yet, people do not always
confer legitimacy based on instrumental terms (that is, pragmatic le-
gitimacy); instead, they often like to offer moral explanations of what
they perceive to be acceptable behavior (that is, moral legitimacy),
(Tost, 2011). A practice is defended not only because it is beneficial, but
also because it is the right thing to do. Indeed studies indicate that
perceptions of moral integrity are needed to build and maintain le-
gitimacy (Mittal & Dorfman, 2012; Sendjaya, Sarros, & Santora, 2008).
However, we assert that legitimacy is not measured solely along fixed
moral standards. For example, in a relational context, followers grant
legitimacy to leaders and their actions. This means that followers be-
come convinced with the leader's vision, goals, and behaviors.
A leader's perceived value system and modeling behavior thus in-
fluence how followers make their active evaluative judgments. Moral
legitimacy does not develop from a specific code of ethics for a leader's
actions or universal standards of behavior. It is sufficient to have a
moral space, which both the leader and followers agree on. Although
moral legitimacy is not necessarily needed in all leadership situations,
its presence would greatly augment perceptions of AL. Sometimes, le-
gitimacy is augmented by a leader's ability, or perceived ability, to
fulfill dearly valued follower objectives (pragmatic legitimacy). In
contrast, moral legitimacy is better realized when there is congruence
in values. In other words, value congruence can increase perceptions of
moral legitimacy, but overall legitimacy can be realized through other
means. Moral legitimacy is accorded when followers judge that leader
behaviors observed represent “the right thing to do” (Suchman, 1995,
p. 579). Deliberative communication explaining those actions is best
accomplished through reasonable argumentation than through manip-
ulation (Scherer, Palazzo, & Seidl, 2013). Moral legitimacy, however,
can still be engineered in the same manner that organizational legiti-
macy is enhanced, that is, through proper engagement with the public
(Castelló, Etter, & Årup Nielsen, 2015).
In essence, AL was related to the concept of legitimacy in earlier
studies (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999), but was deemphasized in later re-
search. Exceptions include Eagly (2005), and Sun and Anderson (2012).
To Eagly, relational authenticity necessitates that followers accord le-
gitimacy to their leaders. She suggested that female leaders, as mem-
bers of outsider social groups, face greater difficulty in getting the le-
gitimacy needed to inspire the identification from followers. Without
such identification, female leaders find it harder to get the needed le-
gitimacy from their potential followers.
One potential reason why some researchers have refrained from
including the moral component in their conceptualization of AL is that
invoking the “moral component” fails to meet the test of universality. In
other words, whose moral standards? Moral legitimacy, in the way
described above, helps us understand cases that meet aspects of AL,
although not necessarily meeting everybody's own moral standards. For
example, moral legitimacy helps to explain cross-cultural cases of
business behavior that may satisfy most dimensions of AL, but where
the inherent moral dimension is questionable to some. Take the ex-
ample posed by Donaldson (1996) about nepotism in some organiza-
tions in India. Nepotism may be viewed as unethical in Western busi-
ness circles (except in some family-run businesses) and, accordingly, a
leader involved in nepotism would not be labeled as authentic, al-
though such a leader exhibits other traits that are part of the construct
in AL research. However, in India, the same leader may be viewed as
authentic. Understanding the leader's nepotistic actions from a legiti-
macy perspective helps us remove the emphasis from a seemingly
universal moral perspective to a culturally adaptable moral view
9
The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
(Sidani & Thornberry, 2013).
Explaining AL in terms of mere legitimacy, particularly its moral
aspect, runs the risk of engaging extreme cultural relativism. These
represent cases in which some would argue, for example, for the mor-
ality of bribery in a corruption-ridden context. For those theorists with
an amoral perspective of AL, it is non-consequential. To such theorists,
AL represents cases in which there is a high degree of transparency
between the leader and followers. In addition, the leader has certain
traits displayed in certain behaviors that lead to the emergence of
“authentic” being given to the leader. Take the example of a CEO who
owns her words, is highly concerned about her company and em-
ployees, and has a positive relationship with them that is void of any
positive (or negative) moral significance. Such a leader deserves the
title “authentic” from such a perspective. In such cases, the leader's
involvement in questionable business deals, such as bribery in corrup-
tion-ridden contexts, as detested as they may be, has little or no bearing
on her authenticity as far as her followers are concerned. In some cases,
what is morally worthy must be understood within the eyes of people
involved, which may vary from one cultural context to another.
Yet, for most AL theorists, the moral dimension is important for
understanding authenticity. Thus, we assert that the “moral free space”
(Donaldson, 1996) does not include cases of clear business misconduct
which represent practices that the business community finds to be
morally abhorrent at a universal level. Moral legitimacy offers a con-
vincing explanation of a leader-follower relationship that meets the
minimum standards of universal ethics though continuing to operate
within the moral free space.
What happens when leaders are not accorded legitimacy? In the
case when the leader-follower interaction does not lead to legitimacy
being granted to an aspiring leader, the leadership relationship does not
occur. This person does not become a leader to “those” followers. If
some other constituents are willing at a certain point in time to grant
that person legitimacy as a leader, the authentic relationship materi-
alizes and this person becomes a leader to those individuals.
Perceptions of authentic leadership
AL is thus an outcome of the processes inherent in the moderating
effects of the active evaluative judgment mode and the leader-follower
value congruence. These are influence processes initiated by a leader's
character and behavior and received by followers willing to appro-
ve—and consequently legitimize—such a relationship. This interaction
between leaders and followers asserts that followers are those who
“authenticate the leader when they [followers] see consistency between
who [leaders] they are and what they do” (Gardner et al., 2005, p. 348).
Some, though not all, independent observers who are not part of this
leadership relationship may also be impacted by impressions of au-
thenticity and consequently ascribe AL to these leader-follower re-
lationships. Those observers do not necessarily share the values of the
leader and the followers, but realize that both are engaged in a lea-
dership situation characterized by an active evaluative judgment mode
and/or value-alignment. Such external audiences acknowledge that
leaders are “being their own selves” in handling followers, although
such audiences may not share the moral systems that govern such re-
lationships. They perceive an impact of such leaders on their followers,
and may infer that such an impact is due to their authenticity. They
consequently describe these leaders as “authentic” who are legitimated
by their followers. Other observers, however, would still judge leaders
to be inauthentic just based on an incongruence of values.
Concluding remarks and implications
The model we develop helps elucidate AL not only from a devel-
opmental perspective but also in terms of how it crystallizes in situa-
tions of ethical relativism. The model also helps to explain why some
scholars have refrained from including the moral dimension altogether.
Y.M. Sidani, W.G. Rowe
Our central argument is that a leader's morality, per se, is not sufficient
for understanding the AL relationship. It is more the case that the
overlap between leaders' and followers' value systems leads to im-
pressions of authenticity, even in cases in which there are no clear
universal moral standards. Authentic relationships cannot occur before
followers grant legitimacy to their leaders, to their value systems, an-
d—subsequently—to their actions. A few real life examples would help
illustrate this point.
Ascribing to Nelson Mandela the title “authentic leader” may come
easy to some. He stood by his values, was committed to what he be-
lieved, and attracted a large committed followership that extended
beyond South Africa. The main structure of his leadership revolved
around a core set of values that he shared with followers: a disdain for
apartheid and a love for freedom (Ciulla, 2013). Applying our model,
Mandela would fit the prototype of a leader who was legitimized by
followers through a process of moral evaluations facilitated by value
congruence. Yet, Mandela stuck to one principle in his life which was
conquering apartheid, “but almost anything that helped him get to that
goal he regarded as a tactic. He is the most pragmatic of idealists”
(Stengel, 2008). Mandela was a principled person, and his set of prin-
ciples changed during different phases in his life from resorting to
violence in the early years, to advocating reconciliation after 28 years
in prison. Yet, Mandela was not dogmatic; beyond a set of core values
(anti-apartheid position), he was willing to learn and reach a compro-
mise (Schoemaker & Krupp, 2014). What is apparent is that Mandela
was aware that he needed the legitimation, not only of the blacks, but
also the whites in South Africa. As a leader, it would have been im-
possible to get the approval of many whites in South Africa had it not
been for him adopting the values of peace and reconciliation. He won
over whites when he chose to wear the Springbok jersey (which most
blacks looked at a symbol of apartheid), and handed the 1995 Rugby
World cup to Francois Pienaar, the captain of the South African team.
He also won over blacks by convincing them of the values of re-
conciliation and forgiveness. Had the blacks of South Africa decided not
to respond positively to his message, events would have taken a dif-
ferent route. What is interesting in the case of Mandela is that fact that
he stuck to his anti-apartheid principle, and was able to convince others
to accord him the moral legitimacy to pursue his mission. Few are the
leaders in world history who would have met such success with diverse
constituencies. In terms of our model, this reaffirms our earlier con-
tention that AL is not a leadership style per se, but an outcome of a
process co-created by leader-follower interaction.
On a different note, one cannot help but think of Hitler's leadership.
Assuming that Hitler was “true to himself” (Kinsler, 2014), he lacked a
positive moral orientation. Thus, according to mainstream AL under-
standing, he would be categorized as inauthentic. Yet, he was legit-
imized by his followers who shared a core set of values with him. Had
Hitler operated in a different set of circumstances, the process of getting
a core set of followers to legitimize him would have been more difficult,
or would have taken a different route. While he used coercive techni-
ques with some of his constituents, the high level of value congruence
with his constituency greatly facilitated his leadership emergence as a
leader whom they viewed as authentic.
A third example pertains to the leadership of President Donald
Trump. Mintz (2015) poses the question: “Is Donald Trump an au-
thentic leader?” His answer is that Trump meets the mark on two
qualities “self-awareness” and “relational transparency”, but fails on
another two “balanced processing” and an “internalized moral per-
spective”. Such a judgment is a clear example of the problem with a
style perspective of AL; a leader is labeled inauthentic by referring to
the evaluations across the four dimensions of AL, as judged by an ob-
server. The question, however, is not whether or not Trump has an
internal moral perspective or has a high level of balanced processing.
The real challenge is judging how he comes across to his followers and
supporters across those dimensions. Many of Trumps' followers share
his value system, and believe that he is genuine in addressing societal
10
The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
priorities. To them, Trump is the paragon of AL. Others, who do not
share the same value system, will most probably have a different per-
spective.1
The example of Mother Teresa is also fascinating to reflect upon.
According to George (2003), she was “a compelling example of an
authentic leader” (p. 25). Yet, a historical review of her life could lead
to the conclusion that her leadership does not match the prevalent AL
theory (Ladkin & Spiller, 2013). Scrutinizing her life, one would find
that she appeared authentic to some audiences, but perhaps less so to
others (Jones & Grint, 2013). Jones and Grint (2013) note that she came
across as truly authentic in her religious mission, but appeared less so in
terms of fighting poverty. So to her sister nuns and multitudes of
faithful people, she would be accorded the title of an authentic leader
who was true to her inner values: “Not only did she have a purpose,
clear values, and a heart filled with compassion, she also created in-
timate relationships with people and exercised self-discipline” (George,
2003, p. 25). That was not the case to some other audiences who were
less concerned about the religious aspects of her life and her mission.
Some of her critics noted that her religious devotion “collided with the
real needs of the impoverished people she set out to help” (Bradley,
2016). Others refer to allegations of poor medical treatment and re-
ligious proselytizing in the institutions she established (Taylor, 2016).
The two sides of Mother Teresa provide interesting illustration of how
evaluative judgments of followers make them more or less prone to
legitimize and therefore ascribe AL unto leaders. People who shared her
passion and devotion for religion perceived a high degree of value
congruence, and were thus more likely to ascribe moral legitimacy to
her. Jones & Grint, 2013 note that “[p]erhaps the lesson from Mother
Teresa's case is that we should approach our leaders as humans rather
than lab-ready humanoids. If they are taken this way, one may be more
prepared to engage with Mother Teresa as a figure who was (like all of
us) ‘genuine’ at times and at other times not” (p. 31–32).
A final example is Margaret Thatcher whom would be classified,
according to most historians, as an authentic leader who was con-
sistently true to herself (Sosik, 2015), leading her to make unpopular
decisions. While she was admired by many members of her party, “[b]
ut to a very large minority of Britons - if not the majority - she was an
increasingly unappealing embodiment of unfeeling middle-class self-
righteousness” (McSmith, 2013). Her strong convictions are thought to
have been the cause of her demise as a leader; she was eventually
ousted by her own cabinet (Ibarra, 2015). In terms of the above model,
the early value congruence with many Britons and her cabinet members
could have facilitated the accordance of legitimacy to her as a leader.
Her convictions were at the time hailed as a sign of strength. When she
“rode roughshod over sections of society, such as the miners and the
unemployed” (McSmith, 2013), legitimacy was taken away. Her famous
“conviction over consensus” standpoint, which is a true embodiment of
authenticity, meant that she had to compromise on her ability to stay as
a leader as there “was a lack of legitimacy to her policies” (Smith,
2013). Her perceived authenticity, on its own, was not sufficient for her
to continue as a leader.
In sum, a leader is perceived as a person who has adopted a value
system, who is true to this value system, and whose behavior is seen by
others to be in harmony with such a value system. Those perceptions
are strengthened by leader's modeling behavior, which could involve
signals sent by the leader (Antonakis et al., 2016). Based on a process of
evaluation, a certain category of followers legitimizes this person as an
authentic leader. In our model, the leader's modeling behavior reflects
the leader's side of the equation. But what is also important is that some
followers more than others, enter into evaluative judgments—as ex-
plained—which make them prone to legitimize the leader and
1
A reviewer interestingly noted that “most Americans seem to judge most politicians
who hold opposing views as craven or corrupt rather than as sincere adherents to dif-
ferent values.”
Y.M. Sidani, W.G. Rowe
accordingly ascribe AL unto her/him. AL thus becomes a dependent
outcome where follower evaluative judgments (either passive or active)
play an important role in the eventual ascription of the title authentic to
that leader. The leader comes across as a role model, a person who is
true to his/her values and beliefs. This is understood by some followers
to represent an authentic leader who is fitting to lead in a given si-
tuation, and who is desirable to follow.
Implications for research
The model we present opens up several interesting avenues for fu-
ture research. One direction is to empirically explore the moral com-
ponent of AL in greater detail. Researchers might also explore the re-
lationship between authentic leaders' moral systems and their
motivation and behavior. This is important to help in identifying the
relative role of the leader in the authentic relationship. Legitimacy has
also been proposed to act as a mediator in creating AL. Research could
examine ways to measure legitimacy uncovering its relationship with
other variables of interest.
Gardner et al. (2011) invited additional innovative ways to em-
pirically assess AL beyond what is available. This may be because AL
research has been dominated by the use of the ALQ (Walumbwa et al.,
2008). Banks et al. (2016) highlighted some issues in the ALQ measure
indicating that problems encountered may have been due to an over-
reliance on single-source methods. However, as we see it, this is not the
only problem. The problem is that the ALQ measure is based on a de-
finition of AL that is prone to many of the problems associated with
improper construct conceptualization (MacKenzie, 2003). Even beyond
the ALQ, there have been serious questions about the usefulness of
questionnaires in assessing leadership as “simply labeling a ques-
tionnaire as a measure of ‘leadership’ does not mean that it actually
measures leadership” (Day, 2014, p. 862). Thus we suggest that AL
theorization needs to be strengthened before resorting to such tools in
measuring leadership. It would not be hasty to call for a moratorium on
the use of the ALQ-type questionnaire measures until a refinement of
theory is attained, and researchers realize that they are studying an
outcome. Till then, we encourage researchers to increase their usage of
alternative methods (Bryman, 2004). Particularly, historiometric ap-
proaches (Ligon, Harris, & Hunter, 2012; Simonton, 2009) may be more
interesting and promising—than questionnaires—in developing our
understanding of AL. Historiometric methodologies rely on available
historical records turning qualitative information into quantitative in-
dices that help in understanding leader differences (Ligon et al., 2012).
Much of what we can potentially understand, in terms of how leaders
are legitimized, might be hidden in archival sources. Historiometric
case studies, such as the one on the collectivistic leadership of George C.
Marshall (Friedrich et al., 2014), would also be fascinating to conduct
for AL.
In addition, research that addresses perceptions of authenticity in
cross-cultural contexts would yield answers to important questions. For
example, do followers assign authentic qualities to leaders with ques-
tionable (at least from a Western perspective) attitudes and behaviors?
Do followers accord legitimacy to leaders with regard to their actions
despite such attitudes and behaviors? What implications does this ac-
cordance of legitimacy have on our understanding of the moral com-
ponent of AL? Do followers fake granting “moral-legitimacy” in high
power distance countries when they are unwilling (or afraid) to voice
their concerns and objections? In such a case, what does the impact of
false legitimacy have on leader-follower relations and on the organi-
zation as a whole? Do some cultural contexts feed the production of
leaders who become even more self-absorbed based on false feedback
from their followers? Answering those questions would help in under-
standing the applicability of the AL construct across cultures.
We still do not know much about followers except that they share,
or end up sharing, common values with their leaders. Different meth-
odologies can be used to learn more about follower predispositions and
11
The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
traits, such as laboratory studies and ethnographic studies that have
been used in prior leadership research (Gardner & Avolio, 1998; Thiel,
Connelly, & Griffith, 2012). There is a body of research that addresses
deep-level diversity—such as diverse values—(Harrison, Price, Gavin, &
Florey, 2002) and its impact on organizational outcomes. Some studies
noted problems with such deep-level diversity or value incongruence.
For example, followers may end up interpreting leader's actions as in-
consistent with organizational values and thus hypocritical (Cha &
Edmondson, 2006). It could, however, be argued that value incon-
gruence in an organization may necessitate the presence of an authentic
person. Actually Cha and Edmondson (2006) note that problems asso-
ciated with incongruence may be mitigated by the presence of a man-
ager who involves herself with thoughtful dialogue with employees.
This possibility presents an interesting area for future research illumi-
nating more on the role of contextual factors in AL.
An unexplored—and perhaps more interesting—area of AL involves
the profile of followers who legitimate their leaders ascribing to them
the title “an authentic leader”. Are some people, more than others,
more prone to legitimate “authentic persons” as leaders? In addition,
more is needed to understand the agency of the follower in terms of
granting or withholding legitimacy. This would further help, among
other things, in shifting the existing focus on leader-centric approaches
of leadership research.
AL, according to our model, is an outcome of some process and
should be studied as such. Of course, AL could also be an endogenous
predictor of other dependent variables too; in this case it needs to be
“instrumented” by exogenous variables to properly identify its causal
effect (Bollen, 2012; Gennetian, Magnuson, & Morris, 2008; Ketokivi &
McIntosh, 2017; Larcker & Rusticus, 2010). Experimental designs have
been used in leadership studies (see for example, Pillai, 1996), but more
studies could be valuable for understanding the AL dynamics. Part of
our discussion centered on the possibility of leader-follower negotia-
tion, which looks like an interesting area for further investigation in an
experimental design. Another area for potential use of experiments
relates to value congruence where various treatments of value con-
gruence could be administered and the outcomes assessed.2 One final
area that could be telling is to assess whether legitimacy would be
granted to different classes of individuals or aspiring leaders (man-
agers/student leader; male/female etc.).
Implications for practice
Although the extent to which “moral values” can be taught is a
matter of continuing debate (Nguyen, Basuray, Smith, Kopka, &
McCulloh, 2008), potential leaders can benefit from programs aimed at
helping them develop skills that help shape their moral identities (see
for example, Gentile, 2010). As important as it is to elevate the cogni-
tive ability of potential leaders, it is not sufficient to ensure that people
will act according to what they realize is the right thing to do. We argue
that it is essential to foster organizational contexts in which people not
only are sensitive to instances of moral significance, but are also en-
couraged to act in accordance with such sensitivities.
A central theme in our model revolved around the issue of legiti-
macy, which does not negate the fact that it is harder for some followers
to accord some aspiring leaders legitimacy by default. This includes
women who do not fit certain prototypical schemes of who a leader is,
and thus have to work harder, in many contexts, to gain legitimacy as
leaders (Eagly, 2005; Terjesen & Sealy, 2016). Management develop-
ment programs designed to address the processes by which authenticity
emerges could be helpful, but fundamentally changing the legitimation
process is a long and arduous process. This does not exclude the need
for all aspiring leaders to hone specific skills that help them better
2
A reviewer suggested that what would be feasible is to manipulate values of leaders
presented and pre-measure values to see whether congruence predicts certain outcomes.
Y.M. Sidani, W.G. Rowe
understand and present their own values and what they stand for, while
being aware of followers' values and what they stand for.
Leaders should also be aware of those instances in which followers
exhibit the façade of granting moral legitimacy. Organizations should
foster cultures in which people are able to express their own values
without fear. Such organizational cultures would increase the like-
lihood that followers are indeed expressing their own value systems and
not faking congruence with the leader for instrumental reasons.
Followers who grant fake legitimacy (who disguise their discontent)
are—in fact—misleading and giving distorted feedback to the leader,
confounding the leadership relationship and leading to leader self-ag-
grandizement.
Accordingly, leadership development should be coupled with fol-
lower development. Consequently, we argue that followers should be
trained to give appropriate and accurate feedback by openly expressing
their own values, which is particularly important in high power dis-
tance cultures in which followers may be reluctant to express their true
values and attitudes. Followers should be encouraged not to “suppress”
their values, but to involve themselves in positive dialogue with their
leaders with the objective of fostering not only AL but also authentic
dialogue. Leaders who are open to alternative value systems would
develop such relationships, and minimize the likelihood of being
blindsided by their own self-interest or narcissism. In those cases, lea-
ders would be encouraged to seek value alignment and not value im-
position.
Conclusion
In this paper, we have examined the importance of legitimacy to the
construct of AL. This perspective suggests that AL is a relational con-
struct in which followers play a central role. When we understand the
agency of the followers in terms of granting or withholding legitimacy,
we can see their power in entering into implicit negotiations with their
leaders in terms of what leaders ought to do in a given situation.
Understanding AL from such a perspective helps explain certain lea-
dership dynamics in situations of ethical relativism, thus alleviating
concerns regarding the presupposed moral component of the construct.
In this manner, it becomes incumbent on organizations to foster not
only leaders who are true to themselves but also followers who are
proactive in constructing the leadership relationship. We hope that
further refinements to this model will explain the relational aspects of
AL in a manner that further benefits both leadership research and
practice.
References
Algera, P. M., & Lips-Wiersma, M. (2012). Radical Authentic Leadership: Co-creating the
conditions under which all members of the organization can be authentic. The
Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 118–131.
Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2013). Essay: Authentic leadership critically reviewed.
Authentic leadership: Clashes, convergences and coalescences (pp. 39–55). Cheltenham,
UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Andersson, S. B., & Andersson, I. (2005). Authentic learning in a sociocultural framework:
A case study on non-formal learning. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,
49(4), 419–436.
Antonakis, J. (2017). Charisma and the “new leadership”. In J. Antonakis, & D. V. Day
(Eds.). The nature of leadership (pp. 56–81). (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Antonakis, J., Bastardoz, N., Jacquart, P., & Shamir, B. (2016). Charisma: An ill-defined
and ill-measured gift. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, 3(1), 293–319.
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the
root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315−338.
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004).
Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower
attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 801−823.
Banks, G. C., Gooty, J., Ross, R. L., Williams, C. E., & Harrington, N. T. (2018). Construct
redundancy in leader behaviors: A review and agenda for the future. The Leadership
Quarterly, 29, 236–251.
Banks, G. C., McCauley, K. D., Gardner, W. L., & Guler, C. E. (2016). A meta-analytic
review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy. The
12
The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 634–652.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational
leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181–217.
Begley, P. T. (2001). In pursuit of authentic school leadership practices. International
Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(4), 353–365.
Bell, C. M., & Hughes-Jones, J. (2008). Power, self-regulation and the moralization of
behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(3), 503–514.
Bhindi, N., & Duignan, P. (1997). Leadership for a new century: Authenticity, in-
tentionality, spirituality, and sensibility. Educational Management and Administration,
25(2), 117–132.
Birkeland Nielsen, M., Eid, J., Mearns, K., & Larsson, G. (2013). Authentic leadership and
its relationship with risk perception and safety climate. Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, 34(4), 308–325.
Bishop, W. H. (2013). Defining the authenticity in authentic leadership. The Journal of
Values-Based Leadership, 6(1), 1–8.
Blom, M., & Lundgren, M. (2016). How to understand and handle divergent views on the
need for leadership interventions: A social constructionist approach. 1st
Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Leadership Symposium, Rhodes, Greece.
Boekhorst, J. A. (2015). The role of authentic leadership in fostering workplace inclusion:
A social information processing perspective. Human Resource Management, 54(2),
241–264.
Bollen, K. A. (2012). Instrumental variables in sociology and the social sciences. Annual
Review of Sociology, 38(1), 37–72.
Bowen, S. A. (2010). The nature of good in public relations: What should be its normative
ethic? In R. L. Heath (Ed.). Handbook of public relations (pp. 569–583). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Bradley, M. (2016, September 2). Mother Teresa's Canonization: Controversy Mars Nun's
Work. NBC Newshttps://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/mother-teresa-s-
canonization-controversy-clouds-nun-s-work-n641181, Accessed date: 24 April 2018.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “We”? Levels of collective identity and
self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83.
Brown, M. E., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Ethical and unethical leadership. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 20(4), 583–616.
Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions.
The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595–616.
Bryman, A. (2004). Qualitative research on leadership: A critical but appreciative review.
The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 729–769.
Castelló, I., Etter, M., & Årup Nielsen, F. (2015). Strategies of legitimacy through social
media: The networked strategy. Journal of Management Studies, 53(3), 402–432.
Caza, A., Bagozzi, R. P., Woolley, L., Levy, L., & Barker Caza, B. (2010). Psychological
capital and authentic leadership: Measurement, gender, and cultural extension. Asia-
Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 2(1), 53–70.
Caza, A., Zhang, G., Wang, L., & Bai, Y. (2015). How do you really feel? Effect of leaders'
perceived emotional sincerity on followers' trust. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(4),
518–531.
Černe, M., Dimovski, V., Marič, M., Penger, S., & Škerlavaj, M. (2014). Congruence of
leader self-perceptions and follower perceptions of authentic leadership:
Understanding what authentic leadership is and how it enhances employees' job sa-
tisfaction. Australian Journal of Management, 39(3), 453–471.
Černe, M., Jaklič, M., & Škerlavaj, M. (2013). Authentic leadership, creativity, and in-
novation: A multilevel perspective. Leadership, 9(1), 63–85.
Cha, S. E., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). When values backfire: Leadership, attribution, and
disenchantment in a values-driven organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(1),
57–78.
Chemers, M. M. (2000). Leadership research and theory: A functional integration. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(1), 27–43.
Chen, G. M. (1995). Differences in self-disclosure patterns among Americans versus
Chinese: A comparative study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26(1), 84–91.
Cianci, A. M., Hannah, S. T., Roberts, R. P., & Tsakumis, G. T. (2014). The effects of
authentic leadership on followers' ethical decision-making in the face of temptation:
An experimental study. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), 581–594.
Ciulla, J. B. (2013). 11. Essay: searching for Mandela: The saint as a sinner who keeps on
trying. Authentic leadership: Clashes, convergences and coalescences (pp. 152–175).
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Cohen, E. D. (2005). The metaphysics of logic-based therapy. International Journal of
Philosophical Practice, 3(1), Retrieved from http://npcassoc.org/docs/ijpp/
metaphysics_of_LBT10V3N1.pdf.
Cooper, C. D., Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2005). Looking forward but learning
from our past: Potential challenges to developing authentic leadership theory and
authentic leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 475–493.
Credé, M., & Harms, P. D. (2015). 25 years of higher-order confirmatory factor analysis in
the organizational sciences: A critical review and development of reporting re-
commendations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(6), 845–872.
Day, D. V. (2014). The future of leadership: Challenges and prospects. In D. V. Day (Ed.).
The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 859–867). Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Deephouse, D. L., & Carter, S. M. (2005). An examination of differences between orga-
nizational legitimacy and organizational reputation. Journal of Management Studies,
42(2), 329–360.
Donaldson, T. (1996). Values in tension: Ethics away from home. Harvard Business Review,
74(5), 48–62.
Eagly, A. H. (2005). Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter?
The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 459–474.
Edwards, J. R. (2011). The fallacy of formative measurement. Organizational Research
Y.M. Sidani, W.G. Rowe
Methods, 14(2), 370–388.
Ellen, B. P., III, Douglas, C., Ferris, G. R., & Perrewé, P. L. (2013). 17. Viewpoint: au-
thentic and political leadership: opposite ends of the same continuum? Authentic
leadership: Clashes, convergences and coalescences (pp. 231–236). Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005). The moderating role of individual differences in the
relation between transformational/transactional leadership perceptions and organi-
zational identification. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(4), 569–589.
Fields, D. (2013). 10. Essay: followers' assessments of a leader's authenticity: what factors
affect how others deem a leader to be authentic? Authentic leadership: Clashes, con-
vergences and coalescences (pp. 133–151). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Ford, J., & Harding, N. (2011). The impossibility of the ‘true self’ of authentic leadership.
Leadership, 7(4), 463–479.
Friedrich, T. L., Vessey, W. B., Schuelke, M. J., Mumford, M. D., Yammarino, F. J., &
Ruark, G. A. (2014). Collectivistic leadership and George C. Marshall: A historio-
metric analysis of career events. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), 449–467.
Gardiner, M. E., Howard, M. P., Tenuto, P. L., & Muzaliwa, A. I. I. (2014). Authentic
leadership praxis for democracy: A narrative inquiry of one state superintendency.
International Journal of Leadership in Education, 17(2), 217–236.
Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical
perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 32−58.
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2005). “Can
you see the real me?” a self-based model of authentic leader and follower develop-
ment. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 343−372.
Gardner, W. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (2008). Can a leader be “true to the self” and socially
skilled? The paradox of leader authenticity and behavioral flexibility. In D. Barry, &
H. Hansen (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of new approaches in management and organi-
zation (pp. 93–94). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic leader-
ship: A review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6),
1120–1145.
Gatling, A., Kang, H. J. A., & Kim, J. S. (2016). The effects of authentic leadership and
organizational commitment on turnover intention. Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, 37(2), 181–199.
Gennetian, L. A., Magnuson, K., & Morris, P. A. (2008). From statistical associations to
causation: What developmentalists can learn from instrumental variables techniques
coupled with experimental data. Developmental Psychology, 44(2), 381–394.
Gentile, M. C. (2010). Giving voice to values: How to speak your mind when you know what is
right. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
George, W. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
George, W., & Sims, P. (2007). True north: Discover your authentic leadership. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Gill, C., & Caza, A. (2018). An investigation of authentic leadership's individual and group
influences on follower responses. Journal of Management, 44(2), 530–554.
Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2013). 15. Cameo: authentic followership in the knowledge
economy. Authentic leadership: Clashes, convergences and coalescences (pp. 208–219).
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Guignon, C. B. (2004). On being authentic. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., & May, D. R. (2011a). Moral maturation and moral conation:
A capacity approach to explaining moral thought and action. Academy of Management
Review, 36(4), 663–685.
Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2011b). Relationships between authentic
leadership, moral courage, and ethical and pro-social behaviors. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 21(04), 555–578.
Hannah, S. T., Lester, P. B., & Vogelgesang, G. R. (2005). Moral leadership: Explicating
the moral component of authentic leadership. In W. L. Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. O.
Walumbwa (Vol. Eds.), Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects and
development. 3. Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects and development
(pp. 43–81). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Harré, N. (2013). 9. Essay: authentic leadership: demonstrating and encouraging three
ways of knowing. Authentic leadership: Clashes, convergences and coalescences (pp. 120–
130). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task
performance: Changing effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on group func-
tioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029–1045.
Haslam, S. A., & Platow, M. J. (2001). The link between leadership and followership: How
affirming social identity translates vision into action. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 27(11), 1469–1479.
Henderson, J. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1983). Leader authenticity: The development and test of
an operational measure. Educational and Psychological Research, 3(2), 63–75.
Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H., & Wu, D. (2018). Do ethical, authentic, and
servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership?
A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 44(2), 501–529.
Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 5(3), 184–200.
Hollander, E. (1980). Leadership and social exchange processes. In K. J. Gergen, M. S.
Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.). Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp.
130–145). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Hollander, E. P. (1964). Leaders, groups, and influence. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hughes, D. J., Lee, A., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Legood, A. (2018). Leadership,
creativity, and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations. The
Leadership Quarterly. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.03.001.
Ibarra, H. (2015). The authenticity paradox. Harvard Business Review, 93(1/2), 53–59.
Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic
well-being: Understanding leader–follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3),
13
The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
373–394.
Jagha, O. (2014). Socioeconomic status, family conflict, and family cohesion as predictors of
adult leadership style (Doctoral dissertation)Minneapolis, MN: Walden University.
Johnson, T. P., & Van de Vijver, F. J. (2003). Social desirability in cross-cultural research.
Cross-Cultural Survey Methods, 325, 195–204.
Jones, O. S., & Grint, K. (2013). Essay: Authentic leadership and history. Authentic lea-
dership: Clashes, convergences and coalescences (pp. 21–39). Cheltenham, UK: Edward
Elgar Publishing.
Ketokivi, M., & McIntosh, C. N. (2017). Addressing the endogeneity dilemma in opera-
tions management research: Theoretical, empirical, and pragmatic considerations.
Journal of Operations Management, 52(Suppl. C), 1–14.
Kinsler, L. (2014). Born to be me… who am I again? The development of authentic lea-
dership using evidence-based leadership coaching and mindfulness. International
Coaching Psychology Review, 9(1), 92–105.
Ladkin, D., & Spiller, C. (Eds.). (2013). Authentic leadership: Clashes, convergences and
coalescences. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Larcker, D. F., & Rusticus, T. O. (2010). On the use of instrumental variables in accounting
research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 49(3), 186–205.
Lawler, J., & Ashman, I. (2012). Theorizing leadership authenticity: A Sartrean per-
spective. Leadership, 8(4), 327–344.
Le, H., Schmidt, F. L., Harter, J. K., & Lauver, K. J. (2010). The problem of empirical
redundancy of constructs in organizational research: An empirical investigation.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112(2), 112–125.
Lee, G. (2017). Leadership coaching: From personal insight to organisational performance.
London, UK: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Lenton, A. P., Bruder, M., Slabu, L., & Sedikides, C. (2013). How does “being real” feel?
The experience of state authenticity. Journal of Personality, 81(3), 276–289.
Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Gardner, W. L., & Sels, L. (2015). Authentic leadership, authentic
followership, basic need satisfaction, and work role performance: A cross-level study.
Journal of Management, 41(6), 1677–1697.
Leroy, H., Palanski, M. E., & Simons, T. (2012). Authentic leadership and behavioral
integrity as drivers of follower commitment and performance. Journal of Business
Ethics, 107(3), 255–264.
Ligon, G. S., Harris, D. J., & Hunter, S. T. (2012). Quantifying leader lives: What his-
toriometric approaches can tell us. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(6), 1104–1133.
Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2001). Leadership, values, and subordinate self-concepts. The
Leadership Quarterly, 12(2), 133–152.
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership: A positive developmental ap-
proach. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.). Positive organizational
scholarship. San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler.
Luthans, F., Norman, S., & Hughes, L. (2006). Authentic leadership. In R. Burke, & C.
Cooper (Eds.). Inspiring leaders (pp. 84–104). London, UK: Routledge.
MacKenzie, S. B. (2003). The dangers of poor construct conceptualization. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 31, 323–326.
Maclean, M., Harvey, C., & Chia, R. (2012). Sensemaking, storytelling and the legit-
imization of elite business careers. Human Relations, 65(1), 17–40.
May, D. R., Chan, A. Y. L., Hodges, T. D., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Developing the moral
component of authentic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32(3), 247–260.
McConnell, A. R. (2011). The multiple self-aspects framework: Self-concept representa-
tion and its implications. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(1), 3–27.
McSmith, A. (2013, April 8). Margaret Thatcher obituary: The most divisive political
leader of modern times. The Independenthttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/
obituaries/margaret-thatcher-obituary-the-most-divisive-political-leader-of-modern-
times-8564559.html.
Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. (1989). A work values approach to corporate
culture: A field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual
outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(3), 424.
Michener, H. A., & Burt, M. R. (1975). Use of social influence under varying conditions of
legitimacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(3), 398.
Michie, S., & Gooty, J. (2005). Values, emotions, and authenticity: Will the real leader
please stand up? The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 441–457.
Mintz, S. (2015 September 9). Is Donald Trump an authentic leader? Ethics Sagehttp://
www.ethicssage.com/2015/09/is-donald-trump-an-authentic-leader-.html, Accessed
date: 18 December 2017.
Mittal, R., & Dorfman, P. W. (2012). Servant leadership across cultures. Journal of World
Business, 47(4), 555–570.
Mohwald, U. (2000). Trends in value change in contemporary Japan. In J. S. Eades, T.
Gill, & H. Befu (Eds.). Globalization and Social Change in Contemporary Japan.
Melbourne, Australia: Trans Pacific Press.
Neilsen, E. H., & Rao, M. H. (1987). The strategy-legitimacy nexus: A thick description.
Academy of Management Review, 12(3), 523–533.
Neubert, M. J., Wu, C., & Roberts, J. A. (2013). The influence of ethical leadership and
regulatory focus on employee outcomes. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(2), 269–296.
Nguyen, N. T., Basuray, M. T., Smith, W. P., Kopka, D., & McCulloh, D. N. (2008). Ethics
perception: Does teaching make a difference? Journal of Education for Business, 84(2),
66–75.
Nicholas, J. L. (2013). Of gods and buggers. In K. S. Decker (Ed.). Ender's game and phi-
losophy: The logic gate is down. Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Nicholson, H., & Carroll, B. (2013). 26. Essay: so you want to be authentic in your lea-
dership: to whom and for what end? Authentic Leadership: Clashes, Convergences and
Coalescences (pp. 286–301). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Novicevic, M. M., Harvey, M. G., Ronald, M., & Brown-Radford, J. A. (2006). Authentic
leadership: A historical perspective. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies,
13(1), 64–76.
Nugent, P. M. S. (2013, May 11). Judgment. PsychologyDictionary.orghttps://
psychologydictionary.org/judgment/.
Y.M. Sidani, W.G. Rowe
Patriotta, G., Gond, J. P., & Schultz, F. (2011). Maintaining legitimacy: Controversies,
orders of worth, and public justifications. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8),
1804–1836.
Peus, C., Wesche, J. S., Streicher, B., Braun, S., & Frey, D. (2012). Authentic leadership:
An empirical test of its antecedents, consequences, and mediating mechanisms.
Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 331–348.
Pillai, R. (1996). Crisis and the emergence of charismatic leadership in groups: An ex-
perimental investigation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(6), 543–562.
Price, T. L. (2003). The ethics of authentic transformational leadership. The Leadership
Quarterly, 14(1), 67–81.
Price, T. L. (2017). A “critical leadership ethics” approach to the ethical leadership
construct. Leadership. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1742715017710646.
Quick, J. C., Macik-Frey, M., & Cooper, C. L. (2007). Managerial dimensions of organi-
zational health: The healthy leader at work. Journal of Management Studies, 44(2),
189–205.
Resick, C. J., Martin, G. S., Keating, M. A., Dickson, M. W., Kwan, H. K., & Peng, C.
(2011). What ethical leadership means to me: Asian, American, and European per-
spectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(3), 435–457.
Rowe, W. G. (2014). Some antecedents and consequences of ethical leadership: An ex-
amination using the kings of Judah. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(4), 557–572.
Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Seidl, D. (2013). Managing legitimacy in complex and
heterogeneous environments: Sustainable development in a globalized world. Journal
of Management Studies, 50(2), 259–284.
Schmid, P. F. (2001). Authenticity: The person as his or her own author. Dialogical and
ethical perspectives on therapy as an encounter relationship. And beyond. Rogers'
therapeutic conditions: Evolution, theory and practice. 1. Rogers' therapeutic conditions:
Evolution, theory and practice (pp. 213–228).
Schoemaker, P., & Krupp, S. (2014, December 5). 6 principles that made Nelson Mandela
a renowned leader. Fortune. http://fortune.com/2014/12/05/6-principles-that-
made-nelson-mandela-a-renowned-leader/, Accessed date: 18 December 2017.
Scott, W. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant lea-
dership behaviour in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 402–424.
Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. (2005). What's your story? A life-stories approach to authentic
leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 395−417.
Shao, R., Aquino, K., & Freeman, D. (2008). Beyond moral reasoning: A review of moral
identity research and its implications for business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly,
18(4), 513–540.
Shi, X. (2007). Wang, Bo, The Philosophy of Zhuangzi. Dao, 6(4), 429–431.
Sidani, Y. M., & Thornberry, J. (2013). Nepotism in the Arab world: An institutional
theory perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(01), 69–96.
Simonton, D. K. (2009). The “other IQ”: Historiometric assessments of intelligence and
related constructs. Review of General Psychology, 13(4), 315.
Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., Huo, Y. J., Ortiz, D. J., & Lind, E. A. (1998). The self-relevant
implications of the group-value model: Group membership, self-worth, and treatment
quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34(5), 470–493.
Smith, M. (2013, April 25). Margaret Thatcher's rejection of consensus was symptomatic of an
anti-democratic tendency in a political system dominated by the executive. blogs
LSEhttp://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/margaret-thatcher-and-the-rejection-of-
consensus-a-rejection-of-democracy/.
Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1998). Social psychology across cultures (2nd ed.). Hemel
Hempstead, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Sosik, J. J. (2015). Leading with character: Stories of valor and virtue and the principles they
teach. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Sosik, J. J., & Cameron, J. C. (2010). Character and authentic transformational leadership
behavior: Expanding the ascetic self toward others. Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice and Research, 62(4), 251.
Sparrowe, R. T. (2005). Authentic leadership and the narrative self. The Leadership
Quarterly, 16(3), 419–439.
Stander, F. W., De Beer, L. T., & Stander, M. W. (2015). Authentic leadership as a source
of optimism, trust in the organisation and work engagement in the public health care
sector. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(1), 1–12.
Steffens, N. K., Mols, F., Haslam, S. A., & Okimoto, T. G. (2016). True to what we stand
for: Championing collective interests as a path to authentic leadership. The Leadership
14
The Leadership Quarterly xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Quarterly, 27(5), 726–744.
Stengel, R. (2008, July 9). Mandela: His 8 lessons of leadership. Time Magazinehttp://
content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,1821659-1,00.html, Accessed
date: 18 December 2017.
Stryker, R. (2000). Legitimacy processes as institutional politics: Implications for theory
and research in the soci9ology of organizations. Research in the Sociology of
Organizations, 17, 179–223.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches.
Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
Sun, P. Y. T., & Anderson, M. H. (2012). Civic capacity: Building on transformational
leadership to explain successful integrative public leadership. The Leadership
Quarterly, 23(3), 309–323.
Taylor, S. G., & Pattie, M. W. (2014). When does ethical leadership affect workplace
incivility? Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(4), 595–616.
Taylor, T. (2016, September 1). Why Mother Teresa is still no saint to many of her critics. The
Washington Posthttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/
02/25/why-to-many-critics-mother-teresa-is-still-no-saint/?utm_term=.
51d65baedb09, Accessed date: 24 April 2018.
Tedeschi, J. T. (1986). Private and public experiences and the self. In R. F. Baumeister
(Ed.). Springer series in social psychology. New York, NY: Springer.
Terjesen, S., & Sealy, R. (2016). Board gender quotas: Exploring ethical tensions from a
multi-theoretical perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 26(1), 23–65.
Thiel, C. E., Connelly, S., & Griffith, J. A. (2012). Leadership and emotion management
for complex tasks: Different emotions, different strategies. The Leadership Quarterly,
23(3), 517–533.
Tomkins, L., & Nicholds, A. (2017). Make me authentic, but not here: Reflexive struggles
with academic identity and authentic leadership. Management Learning, 48(3),
253–270.
Tost, L. P. (2011). An integrative model of legitimacy judgments. Academy of Management
Review, 36(4), 686–710.
Tyler, T. R. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy: A relational perspective on voluntary
deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1(4), 323–345.
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual
Review of Psychology, 57, 375–400.
Valsania, S. E., Moriano, J. A., & Molero, F. (2016). Authentic leadership and in-
trapreneurial behavior: Cross-level analysis of the mediator effect of organizational
identification and empowerment. International Entrepreneurship and Management
Journal, 12(1), 131–152.
van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic-trans-
formational leadership research: Back to the drawing board? The Academy of
Management Annals, 7(1), 1–60.
van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004).
Leadership, self and identity: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly,
15(6), 825–856.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008).
Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal
of Management, 34(1), 89–126.
Whitehead, G. (2009). Adolescent leadership development: Building a case for an au-
thenticity framework. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 37,
847–872.
Wilson, M. (2014). Critical reflection on authentic leadership and school leader devel-
opment from a virtue ethical perspective. Educational Review, 66(4), 482–496.
Wilson, S. (2013). Viewpoint: The authentic leader reconsidered: Integrating the mar-
vellous, mundane and mendacious. Authentic leadership: Clashes, convergences and
coalescences (pp. 55–68). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Wood, G. M. (2007). Authentic leadership: Do we really need another leadership theory?
Fairfax, VA: A Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation at George Mason University.
Wright, R. (2015). It's messy being authentic–lessons learned on the road to becoming an
authentic leader. Strategic HR Review, 14(3), 79–84.
Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J., Riggio, R. E., & Sosik, J. J. (2011a). The effect of authentic
transformational leadership on follower and group ethics. The Leadership Quarterly,
22(5), 801–817.
Zhu, W., Riggio, R. E., Avolio, B. J., & Sosik, J. J. (2011b). The effect of leadership on
follower moral identity: Does transformational/transactional style make a difference?
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 18(2), 150–163.