4 Dimensionlea

EXAMINING AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP:
DEVELOPMENT OF A FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SCALE
AND IDENTIFICATION OF A NOMOLOGICAL NETWORK
by
Timothy E. Lagan
A Dissertation
Submitted to the University at Albany, State University of New York
in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
College of Arts & Sciences
Department of Psychology
2007
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3270277
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3270277
Copyright 2007 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Table of Contents
Abstract...............................................................................................................................ix
Chapter 1: Introduction........................................................................................................ 1
Chapter 2: Literature Review and Hypotheses....................................................................6
Authentic Leadership..................................................................................................... 15
Defining the Construct................................................................................................... 17
Relationship to Other Forms of Leadership.................................................................. 23
Transformational and Charismatic Leadership............................................................. 23
Importance of Morality..................................................................................................25
Identifying a Nomological Network..............................................................................29
Chapter 3: Pilot Study........................................................................................................40
Methodology..................................................................................................................41
Participants.................................................................................................................41
Procedure...................................................................................................................42
Results............................................................................................................................45
Variability and Factor Structure................................................................................ 45
Reliability...................................................................................................................50
Relationship with Other Forms of Leadership...........................................................55
Discussion......................................................................................................................60
Chapter 4: Validation Study...............................................................................................62
Methodology..................................................................................................................63
Participants.................................................................................................................63
Procedures..................................................................................................................64
ii
Measures....................................................................................................................65
Results............................................................................................................................69
Variability and Factor Structure.................................................................................69
Reliability...................................................................................................................82
Relationship with Other Forms of Leadership.......................................................... 86
Test of a Nomological Network and Mediation Model.............................................88
Chapter 5: General Discussion......................................................................................... 116
Behavioral Correlates and Outcomes of Authentic Leadership...................................117
Divergent Validity Evidence........................................................................................119
Assumptions and Limitations......................................................................................120
Implications..................................................................................................................125
References........................................................................................................................ 131
List of Tables
Table 1: Kemis’ (2003) Four-Dimensional Conceptualization of Authenticity................. 9
Table 2: Comparing Two Conceptualizations of Authenticity Dimensions..................... 21
Table 3: Authentic Leadership Dimensions and their Definitions.................................... 43
Table 4: Descriptive Statistics for Pilot Study Variables.................................................. 47
Table 5: Pilot Study Rotated Component Matrix for the 19-item Authentic Leadership
Scale (Varimax Rotation)....................................................................................52
Table 6: Pilot Study Rotated Component Matrix for the 19-item Authentic Leadership
Scale (Direct Oblimin Rotation)..........................................................................54
Table 7: Correlations Among Dimensions of Authentic Leadership (Pilot Study) 56
Table 8: Correlations Among Dimensions of Authentic Leadership and Dimensions of
Transformational Leadership (Pilot Study).........................................................57
Charismatic Leadership (Pilot Study)..................................................................59
Table 10: Descriptive Statistics for Validation Study Variables.......................................70
Table 11: Correlations Among Aggregate Variables Included in the
Validation Study................................................................................................73
Table 12: Rotated Component Matrix for the 19-item Authentic Leadership Scale
(Validation Study)..............................................................................................77
Table 13: Goodness-of-Fit Indicators for Hypothesized Models of Authentic
Leadership..........................................................................................................79
Table 14: Unstandardized Loadings (Standard Errors) and Standardized Loadings for the
Four-Factor Confirmatory Model......................................................................83
iv
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 15: Reliability of the Authentic Leadership Measure for Pilot and Validation
Studies................................................................................................................85
Table 16: Correlations Among Dimensions of Authentic Leadership
(Validation Study)..............................................................................................85
Transformational Leadership (Validation Study)..............................................87
Charismatic Leadership (Validation Study).......................................................89
Table 19: Goodness-of-Fit Indicators for the Full and Partial Mediation Models........... 92
Table 20: Regression Weights for Variables in the Partial Mediation Model.................. 93
Table 21: Regression Weights for Variables in the Full Mediation Model...................... 94
Table 22: Correlations of Aggregate Authentic, Transformational, and Charismatic
Leadership Variables with Leader Behavior and Follower Outcome
Variables............................................................................................................97
Table 23: Hierarchical Regression Examining the Relationship of Authentic and
Transformational Leadership Dimensions to Developing Behavior...............102
Transformational Leadership Dimensions to Encouraging
Innovating Thinking.........................................................................................103
Charismatic Leadership Dimensions to Developing Behavior........................104
Charismatic Leadership Dimensions to Encouraging Innovative Thinking... 106
Transformational Leadership Dimensions to Eudaemonic Well-Being 110
Transformational Leadership Dimensions to Perceptions of
Leader Ethicality..............................................................................................I l l
Charismatic Leadership Dimensions to Eudaemonic Well-Being................. 112
Charismatic Leadership Dimensions to Perceptions of Leader Ethicality 114
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Visual depiction of the hypothesized relationships between authentic
leadership, leader behaviors, and follower outcomes..........................
V ll
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Final Items Included in the Authentic Leadership Scale...........................138
Appendix B: Validation Study Survey............................................................................140
viii
Abstract
In an effort to develop a measure of authentic leadership, the construct was first defined
in accordance with a four-dimensional framework consisting of self-awareness, balanced
processing of self-relevant information, authentic action and relational transparency.
Next, 126 potential items were drafted to assess the dimensions. Following a sorting
procedure, this number was reduced to 75 potential items. To identify items to be
retained for the authentic leadership scale, a pilot study was conducted with 117
undergraduate students. Participants in the pilot study completed a survey consisting of
the 75 authentic leadership items as well as transformational and charismatic leadership
scales. Based on pilot study results, a 19-item measure was created conforming to the
hypothesized four-dimensional structure and demonstrating high internal consistency
(i.e., coefficient alpha of 0.89 for the total scale). A separate validation study was
conducted to validate the factor structure and reliability of the measure, as well as to test
the relationship between authentic leadership and three leader behaviors (leading by
example, empowering behavior, and authentic action) and three follower outcomes
(eudaemonic well-being, perceptions of leader ethicality, and affective commitment).
Validation study participants were 222 United States government employees.
Participants completed a survey consisting of the authentic leadership measure,
transformational and charismatic leadership scales, and measures of leader behaviors and
follower outcomes. Factor analysis results from the validation study showed overlap
between authentic action and relational transparency items. Validation study results also
showed significant correlations between the authentic leadership measure and the three
leader behaviors as well as the three follower outcomes. Results from the validation
ix
study also revealed a mediating effect for two of the three leader behaviors. Leading by
example mediated the relationship between authentic leadership and all three follower
outcomes, and authentic action mediated the relationship between authentic leadership
and perceptions of leader ethicality. No mediating effects were found for empowering
behavior. Results from the pilot and validation studies showed a moderate degree of
overlap between the authentic leadership scale and measures of transformational and
charismatic leadership. Implications of the findings, as well as assumptions and
limitations of the current research, are discussed.
Chapter 1: Introduction
Examining Authentic Leadership:
Development of a Four-Dimensional Scale and Identification of a Nomological Network
In recent years, corporate America has become an arena for dishonest, immoral,
and sometimes reprehensible behavior by corporate executives. The past decade has
been witness to an increase in the number of allegations and convictions of wrong doing
by those who hold power and make decisions within organizations (Carson, 2003).
Executives have chosen to maximize personal gain by placing their personal self-interests
ahead of the interests of their organizations, stakeholders, employees, and customers. As
a result of the dishonesty of these organizations, our economy has been negatively
impacted by workers losing their jobs, stockholders losing their investments, and a
general decrease in consumer confidence. The diversity and impact of these dishonest
practices can be seen in some recent examples.
Perhaps the most dramatic example of corporate malfeasance is that of the Enron
Corporation. In January of 2001, stock for the Enron Corporation was trading at ninety
dollars per share. As of March 2007, it can be purchased for less than a quarter per share.
Investors and employees lost tens of billions of dollars, including pension and retirement
funds, because organizational executives chose to hide billions of dollars in debt and
losses from financial statements. As the organization entered into bankruptcy due to a
conviction on charges of accounting fraud, company executives gave themselves bonuses
while more than six thousand of their Enron employees lost their jobs, health care plans,
and life savings. In June of 2005, two top executives at Tyco International Ltd. were
convicted of stealing more than six hundred million dollars from the company, most of
which went to fund their extravagant lifestyles. These executives were found guilty of
grand larceny, securities fraud, and falsifying business records; and their actions damaged
stockholder investments as well as the integrity of the organization. By stealing money
that should have been used for organizational operations, Tyco executives limited the
ability of the organization to plan and react to changes within their business environment,
implement new technologies, exploit business opportunities, and meet their financial
responsibility of repaying debts. Other examples of corporate malfeasance include
WorldCom, Adelphia Communications Corporation, and HealthSouth Corporation.
As a result of these corporate scandals, organizational researchers have paid
increased attention to factors influencing dishonest and unethical practices in
organizations. Given that unethical or dishonest business practices often originate with
executives and have the greatest impact at the top of the corporate hierarchy, a logical
place to begin an empirical investigation of integrity in organizations is with research
examining the actions of top-level leaders. Along these lines, one of the more recent and
promising approaches to studying leadership within organizations is authentic leadership
theory (Luthans & Avolio, 2003). It is believed that authentic leadership can make a
fundamental difference in organizations by helping employees to find meaning in their
work through increased self-awareness, by restoring confidence and hope, and by
promoting transparent relationships and decision making processes that build trust,
commitment, and perceptions of ethicality among followers (Avolio, Gardner,
Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004).
Proponents of authentic leadership contend that existing leadership theories and
frameworks are insufficient for developing leaders of the future. The increase in
unethical corporate leadership combined with an increase in societal challenges has led to
the need for positive organizational leadership more so today than in any other time
period (Cooper, Scandura, & Schriesheim, 2005). The ultimate goal of authentic
leadership scholars is to train and develop leaders who will create positive work
environments and conduct business in an ethical and responsible manner. However, it is
premature to focus on designing interventions to develop authentic leaders without first
undertaking a number of preliminary steps to better understand the construct of authentic
leadership.
The purpose of the current research is to develop a reliable and valid measure of
authentic leadership and to examine the construct’s nomological network. To date,
numerous researchers have developed testable hypotheses related to authentic leadership,
including its impact on follower attitudes and behaviors (Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa,
Luthans, & May, 2004), the development of its moral component (May, Chan, Hodges, &
Avolio, 2003), and its relationship to both organizational performance (Gardner &
Schermerhom, 2004) and employee eudaemonic well-being (Hies, Morgeson, &
Nahrgang, 2005). However, most of the current theorizing related to authentic leadership
is limited to qualitative reviews due to the lack of a reliable and valid measurement
instrument. This study aims to provide a starting point for the empirical investigation of
authentic leadership by developing an authentic leadership scale and testing the
relationship of the construct with variables in its hypothesized nomological network. The
following chapters of this paper describe how the construct was defined, the development
of a perceptions-based scale, and testing of the construct’s nomological network.
Two separate studies were conducted as part of the current research; a pilot study
and a validation study. The primary goal of the pilot study was to identify items to form
the content of the authentic leadership scale. Participants in the pilot study responded to
a number of draft items designed to assess authentic leadership. An examination of the
reliability and factor structure of the preliminary authentic leadership items was used to
identify the strongest items to be included in the final scale. The goal of the validation
study was to further examine the reliability and factor structure of the authentic
leadership measure and also to test a proposed nomological network for the construct.
Validation study participants completed an authentic leadership scale consisting of the
items identified during the pilot study and a battery of scales designed to assess leader
behaviors, follower outcomes, and other forms of leadership. Results of the validation
study were used to examine the construct validity of the authentic leadership measure.
This paper begins with a review of the current literature related to authenticity and
authentic leadership. The goal of the literature review is to describe background research
and theorizing on the construct of authentic leadership and to discuss the rationale for
hypotheses. The pilot and validation studies are described in the following two chapters.
Discussion of these studies includes a description of the methodology and results,
including study participants, procedures, and analyses performed. Empirical evidence
related to each of the hypotheses is presented in the results section of each study. Finally,
the last chapter of the paper integrates the results of both studies and discusses the
potential limitations and implications of the current research for authentic leadership
theory.
Chapter 2: Literature Review and Hypotheses
The concept of authentic leadership stems from social psychological research on
the construct of authenticity. From an ontological perspective, authenticity reflects the
unobstructed operation of one’s true or core self in one’s daily activities (Goldman &
Kemis, 2002). Authentic individuals have a solid grasp of their own values, feelings,
desires, and cognitions, and that self-knowledge is reflected in all of their daily activities
from behavior at home to behavior at work. Authentic persons will not provide false
pretenses for their actions or cover up actions that they do not want others to see.
Instead, their behavior is a reflection of their true self and their knowledge of their true
self. Research on authenticity can be traced back to the humanistic psychology of Rogers
(1959) and Maslow (1968). These scholars focused their attention on the development of
fully functioning or self-actualized individuals who are “in tune” with their basic nature
and accurately see themselves and their lives. The assumption apparent in the thinking of
Rogers and Maslow was that self-actualized individuals are unencumbered by the
expectations of others and able to make sound personal choices. Maslow, in particular,
viewed self-actualized individuals as having strong ethical convictions. It is from the
early work of these scholars that research on authenticity began.
One of the early debates centering on the construct of authenticity was its
relationship to sincerity. It is important not to confuse these two constructs in a research
context. Whereas sincerity refers to the degree to which an individual’s external
expression of feelings and thoughts to others are aligned with the reality experienced by
the self, authenticity has a more self-referential basis (Salmela, 2005). Sincerity is judged
by the extent to which a person accurately and honestly represents themselves to others,
while authenticity is judged by the extent to which individuals are true to themselves.
Authenticity refers to “owning one’s personal experiences...and further implies that one
acts in accord with the true self, expressing oneself in ways that are consistent with inner
thoughts and feelings” (Harter, 2002, p. 382). The self-referential nature of authenticity
is what separates it from sincerity because authenticity does not involve the explicit
consideration of others. To further this distinction, consider the following example. A
college student feels that cheating on a test is morally wrong, but needs an ‘A’ on the
final exam to pass a course for the semester. As a result of this situation, the student
decides to cheat on the exam and receives an ‘A.’ Clearly, this student is exhibiting
inauthentic behavior that is not aligned with his or her core values. However, when the
student talks to their friends about the experience, he or she admits the cheating and
explains the extenuating circumstances of the event. In this way, the student can be
considered both inauthentic and sincere.
Recent conceptualizations of authenticity have delineated four components, or
dimensions, of the construct (Kemis, 2003). Table 1 depicts these four dimensions along
with their definitions. The first component is self-awareness, which reflects the notion
that before individuals can act in accordance with their values and beliefs they must first
be aware of such things. First and foremost, authenticity involves the awareness and
acceptance of one’s own motives, feelings, desires, and self-relevant cognitions (Kemis,
2003). This awareness includes the knowledge of one’s strengths and limitations, trait
characteristics, and emotions. In addition, authenticity encompasses a knowledge of the
inherent polarity of personality, including both the figure and ground of one’s personality
aspects (Peris, Hefferline, & Goodman, 1965). This perspective recognizes that
personality constructs are not ‘all or none.’ For example, it is not correct to label an
individual as either introverted or extroverted. Instead, both aspects of the
introversion/extroversion construct are reflected within all individuals with one aspect
dominating over the other. In other words, rather than labeling an individual as
introverted, one should say that the introverted aspect of that individual’s personality is
stronger than the extroverted aspect. Authentic individuals are aware of these multi
faceted self-aspects of personality and the role that they play in behavior.
Table 1
K em is’ (2003) Four-Dimensional Conceptualization o f Authenticity
Dimension____________________ Definition________________________________
Self-awareness Awareness and acceptance of one’s own motives,
feelings, desires, and self-relevant cognitions.
Unbiased processing of self- Untainted evaluation of information gained from
relevant information being self-aware.
Authentic action Behaving in accordance with one’s deep-seated
values, preferences, and needs.
Authentic relations Recognizing, valuing and striving to achieve
openness and honesty in relationships with others.
The second component of authenticity involves the unbiased processing of self
relevant information. It should come as no surprise that individuals do not always like
the information that they gather from being self-aware. Often, self-awareness involves
the recognition of information about the self that is unpleasant or unwanted, such as
activities that one is not proficient in or emotions that are seen in a negative light. In
these circumstances, individuals will sometimes belittle the importance of activities that
they do not perform well or misrepresent emotions that they do not wish to accept. This
rationalization of negative self-information is thought to be motivated by self-esteem
concerns and the need to appear competent (Kemis, 2003). In contrast, authentic
individuals do not deny, distort, exaggerate or ignore the knowledge that they gain
through self-awareness, including private information, internal experiences, or externally-
based evaluative information (Kemis, 2003). Authenticity requires complete objectivity
in the evaluation of one’s positive and negative aspects, attributes, and qualities.
Research examining the unbiased processing of self-relevant information draws a
parallel to the notion of ego defense mechanisms (Kemis, 2003). Both streams of
research examine how individuals react to information that is judged to be important and
relevant to the self. Most importantly, the type of ego defense mechanism employed by
an individual has been shown to have repercussions for his or her well-being. The use of
an adaptive or mature defense style (operationalized as minimal distortion of reality)
positively predicts both psychological and physical well-being (Vaillant, 1992). On the
flip side of the coin, individuals who utilize maladaptive or immature defense styles
(operationalized as a greater degree of reality distortion and the failure to acknowledge
and resolve distressing emotions) are likely to experience psychological and interpersonal
difficulties (Ungerer, Waters, Barnett, & Dolby, 1977). This research provides a basis for
the claim that authentic individuals are better poised for positive psychological and
physical growth than individuals who distort or ignore any type of self-relevant
information.
10
The third component of authenticity is behaving authentically. This component
asks the question, “Do people actually act in accordance with their true selves?” When
individuals behave authentically, they are not motivated by a desire to please others,
attain rewards or avoid punishments. Instead, they act in a manner that is dictated by
their deep-seated values, preferences, and needs. The opposite of authentic behavior is
acting falsely, in which individuals engage in behaviors that are not aligned with their
true selves. Harter (1997) articulated three motivations for why individuals act falsely.
The first is devaluation of the self, where individuals dislike themselves or are disliked by
significant others. These individuals act falsely in order to perpetuate the notion that they
are disliked. The second motivation for acting falsely is a desire to please others or to be
liked by others. This is the opposite of devaluation of the self. The final motivation
relates to experimentation with different selves as a form of social role playing.
Individuals displaying this motivation adapt their behavior to the situation in which they
find themselves. Often, they are not aware of their own values and beliefs, and they
internalize the values and beliefs dictated by the situation.
In some ways, authentic action represents the essence of authenticity. In contrast
to self-awareness and the unbiased processing of self-relevant information, authentic
action can be directly observed and represents the culmination of authentic thinking. It is
important to note that research on authenticity recognizes that self-awareness and
unbiased processing of self-relevant information are related to, but still separable from
actual behavior. This is most obvious during situations in which the values and beliefs of
the self are at odds with social norms. Authentic behavior will sometimes be blocked by
social sanctions, resulting in a short-term internal conflict between one’s true self and the
11
environment. For example, consider an employee who uncovers wrongdoing by his or
her supervisor. This individual’s core beliefs may dictate that it is his or her
responsibility to report the activity, but he or she may ultimately keep silent in order to
avoid the negative repercussions associated with being a whistleblower. Thus, even in
situations where authentic behavior is not able to be overtly expressed, authenticity can
still be reflected at other levels. Rather than focusing on whether or not an individual
engaged in authentic action, one can look to how the processes associated with the self-
awareness and unbiased processing components informed one’s choice of behavior.
These other components represent relatively internal aspects of authenticity, while
behavior can be seen from the viewpoint of an external observer. Thus, it is possible to
have high self-awareness and unbiased processing without authentic behavior. This
situation highlights the importance of considering all dimensions of authenticity
independently when attempting to measure the construct.
May, Chan, Hodges, and Avolio (2003) introduced the concept of moral courage,
which is relevant to a discussion of the authentic action component of authenticity.
Moral courage refers to an individual’s fortitude to convert moral intentions to action
despite pressures from external agents to do otherwise. Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1974)
theory of planned behavior demonstrates that intentions and behavior do not always
correlate perfectly. Intentions may be the proximal determinant of behavior, but the
relationship is dependent upon a number of other factors such as perceived behavioral
control and situational constraints. In the case of authenticity, an individual may be
aware of his or her values or beliefs and intend to act authentically, but those intentions
will not always translate into authentic behavior. Moral courage is a dispositional factor
12
that acts as a moderator of the relationship between authentic intentions and authentic
behavior. It helps individuals stand strong in the face of external pressures and maintain
their commitment to act in accordance with their values. Moral courage is highest when
individuals believe that they have the skills, abilities, and motivation to justify an
authentic action (May, Chan, Hodges, & Avolio, 2003).
The fourth dimension of authenticity, authentic relations, differs from the
previous three because it is relational in nature. The authentic relations dimension is
reflected in the close relationships that an individual maintains with others. Specifically,
an authentic individual recognizes, values, and strives to achieve openness and honesty in
relationships with others. Rather than putting on a “front,” they recognize the importance
of showing other people their true self, including both the positive and negative aspects
that they gain from being self-aware. When relating to others, authentic individuals will
allow their values, beliefs, and cognitions to surface through a selective process of self
disclosure and the development of mutual intimacy and trust (Kemis, 2003). This
component is especially prevalent in a leadership context where authentic leaders strive
to maintain open and transparent relationships with their followers.
It is important to note that each of the components of authenticity is susceptible to
the influence of individual differences that may block the expression of one’s true self.
One of the most prevalent individual difference variables in this regard is self-
monitoring. Self-monitoring refers to differences in the degree to which people “monitor
their expressive behavior and accordingly regulate their self-presentation for the sake of
desired public appearances” (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000). High self-monitors tend to be
responsive to cues in their social environment that dictate appropriate behavior (Riggio &
13
Friedman, 1982). For example, in a situation where coworkers held a position opposite
one’s own, a high self-monitor would not express the dissenting opinion because of a
desire to conform to social cues. To the extent that individuals are influenced more
strongly by their cjesire to conform to social cues than to express their core self, such
individuals will lack authentic action. A low self-monitor will be less responsive to social
cues, especially when they are in conflict with his/her core self. As such, low self
monitors are more likely to resist social influences and act in accordance with their true
selves.
In addition to self-monitoring, there are a number of other individual difference
variables within each dimension that may affect authenticity. For example, within the
self-awareness dimension, authenticity can be blocked when a person does not seek to be
in tune with his or her values and beliefs. During unbiased processing of self-relevant
information, an individual may deny, distort, or ignore information that is relevant to his
or her true self. Research on self-esteem has shown that individuals with defensive,
contingent or unstable self-esteem may be particularly susceptible to a blockage of
negative information (Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005). Regarding the behavioral
component of authenticity, some individuals will be inclined to replace their intentions to
engage in authentic action with intentions to engage in more socially acceptable or less
risky behavior. Again, self-esteem may play a role here in that individuals with low self
esteem may not be willing to act in a manner that would draw negative or unwanted
consequences. Within the relational component of authenticity, individuals may not
engage in authentic relationships with others due to a desire to avoid negative
evaluations. For example, individuals with a high fear of rejection in relationships are
14
likely to forego authentic relationships with others (Downey, Freitas, Michaelis, &
Khouri, 1998).
Taken as a whole, the four dimensions of authenticity reflect the unobstructed
operation of one’s true self in one’s daily life. Central to the concept of authenticity is
the contention that multiple realities coexist at any one point in time, and individuals are
free to choose whichever one they desire. For example, an employee who is given the
task of creating charts for an upcoming meeting can view the duty as a meaningless piece
of busywork or as an opportunity to hone his or her skills related to computer graphics
software. Although the task is exactly the same, two employees can create vastly
different realities related to its operation. Authentic individuals are those who have
complete trust in the reality that they choose for themselves while recognizing that theirs
is not the only reality that exists. The choice among multiple realities parallels the choice
that must be made when deciding how one’s true self will play out in one’s behavior.
When deciding how to act in a given situation, authentic individuals are fully cognizant
of the reality that they are choosing while also being aware that it represents but one of
many possible realities. In other words, authentic individuals experience the freedom to
choose among coexisting realities while also experiencing a sense of responsibility to the
reality that they choose. This knowledge of other realities is central to the concept of
authenticity.
Authentic Leadership
As conceptualized by Kemis (2003), authenticity is a broad construct applicable
to many specific domains. For the purposes of this study, authenticity will be applied to
the domain of leadership. The first applications of authenticity to leadership research
15
came within the context of sociology and education (Hannah & Chan, 2004). Within
sociology, Seeman (1966) defined the construct of inauthenticity to refer to an excessive
plasticity exhibited by a leader seeking to comply with demands arising from public
roles. Unfortunately, subsequent research failed to confirm the hypothesized relationship
between inauthenticity and increased levels of reality distortion (Brumbaugh, 1970). As
a result, the construct validity of the measure was questioned and the construct soon
vanished from mainstream research. Henderson and Hoy (1983) revisited the
inauthenticity construct within the context of educational leadership. They developed a
new scale by revising and adding items to Seeman’s original scale. They felt that
inauthentic leaders were those who were overly compliant with stereotypes and demands
related to the leadership role. Again, this conceptualization of authenticity had little
impact on subsequent leadership research and theory.
Recently, there has been a surge of interest in authentic leadership among
organizational scholars. These scholars have recognized the problems with earlier
approaches to studying authentic leadership and have focused most of their attention on
the construct’s definitional issues thus far. Cooper, Scandura, and Schriesheim (2005)
outlined four critical issues that must be taken into consideration before applied research
on authentic leadership can move forward. First, the construct of authentic leadership
must be effectively defined and measured. Given the potential for overlap, it is of utmost
importance that the construct be differentiated from other similar leadership constructs.
In order to accomplish this, the construct domain must be defined as to highlight the
similarities and differences between authentic leadership and other approaches to
leadership. Second, the divergent validity of the construct must be empirically
16
demonstrated. This step is necessary in order to further ascertain whether the construct is
redundant with other similar leadership constructs (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Third,
relevant construct outcomes within a nomological network must be identified and tested.
During this step, it should also be shown that the antecedents and consequences of
authentic leadership differ from those of other forms of leadership in clear and
measurable ways. Finally, it must be determined whether or not authentic leadership can
be taught. The current study seeks to tackle the first three of these steps.
Defining the Construct
The most commonly cited definition of authentic leaders refers to “those
individuals who are deeply aware of how they think and behave and are perceived by
others as being aware of their own and others’ values, moral perspective, knowledge, and
strengths; aware of the context in which they operate; and who are confident, hopeful,
optimistic, resilient, and high on moral character” (Avolio, Luthans, & Walumbwa, 2004,
p.4). From this definition, authentic leadership is best viewed as a continuum, where the
more a leader remains true to his or her values, beliefs, identities, preferences and
emotions, the more authentic he or she is considered (Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa,
Luthans, & May, 2004). Initial theorizing on authentic leadership also identified the
positive psychological capacities of confidence, optimism, hope, and resiliency as
resources of the authentic leader. These capacities are predicted to lead to heightened
self-awareness and self-regulatory behaviors on the part of the leader.
Rather than being an end state, authentic leader self-awareness is an emerging
process by which a leader comes to understand his or her strengths, beliefs, values and
desires. Avolio and Gardner (2005) contend that four elements of self-awareness are of
17
particular importance to authentic leadership: awareness of values and cognitions
regarding identity, emotions, and motives/goals. It is important to note that self-
awareness plays a key role in authentic leadership theory (Luthans & Avolio, 2003);
however, this is not a point that separates it from other leadership theories.
Transformational and charismatic leadership theories (Bums, 1978; Conger and
Kanungo, 1987) also make mention of the role of leader self-awareness.
An authentic leader’s self-regulation process includes setting internal standards,
using heightened self-awareness to assess discrepancies between actual and desired
outcomes, and identifying corrective actions for reducing the discrepancy (Avolio &
Gardner, 2005). Avolio and Gardner (2005) also contend that authenticity is achieved
through internal regulatory processes, as opposed to external standards or consequences.
This negative feedback loop approach is similar to the mechanisms described by the self-
control theory of motivation (Klein, 1989), but also draws from self-determination theory
(Deci & Ryan, 2000) in assuming that authentic leaders have innate needs that must be
met in order for positive psychological well-being to exist. Self-awareness and self
regulation are important to authentic leadership because they are the processes by which
authentic leaders align their values with their intentions and actions.
Authentic leadership theory (Avolio & Gardner, 2005) also includes a positive
organizational context as a facilitator of the relationship between authentic leadership and
performance. The psychological capacities of authentic leaders can be enhanced by a
positive organizational context. Avolio and Gardner (2005) outline four aspects of an
organization’s climate that can directly contribute to increased leader and follower self-
awareness: certainty, inclusiveness, ethicality, and strength-focused. When these positive
18
aspects of the organizational climate are present, authentic leaders are more likely to be
effective than when they are not present. It is important to note that the existence of a
positive climate can facilitate the influence of authentic leaders, but is not required for
influence to occur.
From this initial conceptualization of authentic leadership, it appears that the
construct combines positive leader capacities with a conducive organizational context,
resulting in greater self-awareness and self-regulated behavior on the part of leaders and,
in turn, followers (Luthans & Avolio, 2003). It also views the act of leading as a social
influence process that can occur between a leader and a single follower or between a
leader and a group of followers. However, it can be seen that initial conceptualizations of
what constitutes an authentic leader are both multidimensional and multilevel in nature.
Early definitions speak to traits, states, behaviors, contexts and attributions (Cooper,
Scandura, & Schriesheim, 2005). It is also unclear as to whether the appropriate
perceivers of authentic leadership are the leaders themselves, their followers, or outside
observers. There is minimal discussion as to the appropriate level of analysis, which may
be individual, team or organizational levels (Avolio, Luthans, Walumbwa, 2004).
Finally, early conceptualizations do not specify the response category units to be
employed in a measurement context (i.e. frequency of behavior, magnitude of behavior,
or extent of agreement with behavioral statements) or the content domain/subdimensions
of the construct. However, rather than viewing the multidimensional and multilevel
nature of the construct as a shortcoming, Luthans and Avolio (2003) claim that beginning
with a broad definition is appropriate given prior criticisms of leadership constructs for
19
not recognizing the complexity of the phenomenon in question. From this point, the
definition can be refined on the basis of additional theory and research.
Shamir and Eilam (2005) began to refine and narrow the definition by putting
forth four important characteristics of authentic leaders. First, rather than conforming to
the expectations of others, authentic leaders are true to themselves. Next, authentic
leaders are motivated by personal convictions, rather than the desire to obtain personal
benefits. Third, authentic leaders lead their followers based on their own personal point
of view. Finally, the actions in which authentic leaders engage are based on their
personal values and convictions. As a method of refining the definition, Shamir and
Eilam purposely make no mention of an authentic leader’s style or the content of the
leader’s personal values or convictions. In this way, their definition differs from that of
Luthans and Avolio (2003) who make the contention that authentic leaders encompass a
positive moral perspective in their values and beliefs.
Taking the concerns of the preceding researchers into consideration, a number of
authentic leadership scholars have agreed upon a conceptualization of the authentic
leadership construct which demonstrates considerable overlap with Kemis’ (2003)
original dimensions of authenticity (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May & Walumbwa, 2005;
Hies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005; Luthans & Avolio, 2003). However, Avolio and
Gardner (2005) highlight two main differences between Kemis’ (2003) dimensions of
authenticity and the hypothesized dimensions of authentic leadership. First, they
recommend the term ‘balanced processing’ be used rather than ‘unbiased processing’ of
self-relevant information because cognitive psychological research suggests that humans
are inherently flawed information processors. As such, it is not correct to argue that
20
authentic leaders are free from cognitive biases, but rather that they consider multiple
sides of an issue in a relatively balanced manner. Second, Avolio and Gardner (2005)
consider the term ‘relational transparency’ to be more descriptive than the term relational
authenticity. They feel that the term ‘transparency’ better reflects the open and
translucent manner by which authentic leaders and followers share information and
interact with each other. The present study will follow the recommendations of Avolio
and Gardner (2005) by renaming two dimensions of authenticity as “balanced processing
of self-relevant information” and “relational transparency.” Table 2 depicts the
relationship between Kemis’ (2003) and Avolio and Gardner’s (2005) conceptualizations
of authenticity.
Table 2
Comparing Two Conceptualizations o f Authenticity Dimensions
Kemis (2003)________________________ Gardner and Avolio (2005)____________
Self-awareness Self-awareness
Unbiased processing of self-relevant Balanced processing of self-relevant
information information
Authentic action Authentic action
Authentic relations Relational transparency
For the purposes of developing a measure of authentic leadership within this
study, a clear definition of authentic leadership is explicated. While some leadership
theories are described as being exclusively trait-based or exclusively behaviorally-based,
authentic leadership theory takes an interactional approach by highlighting the interplay
21
of both leader traits and behaviors. For example, authentic leaders are thought to possess
an inherent moral character (i.e., a trait) and also display this character in their
relationships with followers (i.e., behaviors). Thus, an authentic leader’s traits or
behaviors alone do not sufficiently define the full domain of the construct. The
interaction of a leader’s moral character with their behavioral tendencies must be taken
into consideration when describing authentic leadership. The interactional nature of the
construct has implications for its measurement. Specifically, in order to appropriately
measure all four dimensions of authentic leadership, a scale must contain items that are
both trait-based and behavioral in nature. Also, for the purposes of this study, authentic
leadership will be measured through the perceptions of subordinates. The level of
analysis will be the individual level, and the response category will be the extent of
agreement with a number of trait- and behaviorally-based statements regarding the leader.
Drawing from Kemis’ (2003) and Avolio and Gardner’s (2005) work on
authenticity, it is theorized that authentic leadership is a latent construct represented by
four dimensions: self-awareness, balanced processing of self-relevant information,
authentic action, and relational transparency. Within the current study, the authentic
action dimension of authentic leadership will serve a dual role. In accordance with
Avolio and Gardner’s (2005) recommendation, authentic action will first serve as one of
the dimensions that define the construct of authenticity and differentiate it from other
forms of leadership. In addition, given that the result of self-awareness, balanced
processing, and relational transparency is the act of behaving authentically, authentic
action will also serve as a behavioral indicator of the constmct of authentic leadership.
As a result, authentic action will be used as both a dimension of authentic leadership and
22
a behavioral indicator of the construct. The authentic leadership scale will assess each of
the four interrelated dimensions separately, with the understanding that the dimensions
can also be aggregated to form a composite measure of the construct.
Hypothesis 1 - Authentic leadership will consist of four distinct dimensions: self-
awareness, balanced processing of self-relevant information, authentic action, and
relational transparency.
Relationship to Other Forms o f Leadership
In order for authentic leadership to be viewed as a valuable construct to
organizational researchers and practitioners, it is critical to explore its relationship with
other relevant constructs. Authentic leadership theory-building should show support for
the conceptual independence of the construct from other similar constructs, as well as
build the case for construct validity (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Specifically, it will be
important to distinguish authentic leadership from both transformational and charismatic
leadership. Typically, the distinction between leadership constructs such as
transformational and charismatic leadership have been made on the basis of the execution
of a set of skills or the intent of the leader. However, in this case, the distinction of
authentic leadership from transformational and charismatic leadership rests heavily upon
a leader’s morality. Before discussing the critical distinctions among the theories, the
major tenets of transformational and charismatic leadership will be reviewed.
Transformational and Charismatic Leadership
The concept of transformational leadership was introduced into organizational
literature by Bums (1978). Transformational leaders provide their followers with a
purpose or sense of direction that transcends short-term goals and extrinsic needs. In
23
contrast to transactional leadership, in which leaders gain follower compliance through
positive reinforcement and directive actions, transformational leadership focuses on
ensuring follower identification with organizational goals and commitment to the leader’s
vision. Transformational leadership has four hypothesized dimensions: idealized
influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized
consideration (Yukl, 2002). Idealized influence refers to a leader’s ability to behave in
ways that cause follower acceptance of and identification with his/her organizational
vision. Inspirational motivation is present to the extent that a leader articulates an
appealing vision. Transformational leaders increase motivation by challenging their
followers to achieve high standards and providing a sense of purpose and meaning to
tasks. Intellectual stimulation refers to a leader’s ability to enhance creativity and
knowledge among followers. By challenging the status quo and taking risks,
transformational leaders cause their followers to engage in critical thinking.
Individualized consideration is present in leaders who listen and appropriately respond to
the needs of each follower. Transformational leaders recognize the value of individual
follower accomplishments for achieving the mission of the organization.
Despite its close similarity with transformational leadership, charismatic
leadership has emerged as a distinct leadership construct in organizational literature.
Much like transformational leaders, charismatic leaders rely on their personality and
appeal (rather than external authority) to influence followers. Additionally, a leader’s
charisma is hypothesized to influence the extent to which they are perceived as
transformational (Yukl, 2002). Charismatic leadership has been studied as both a trait
and a set of behaviors. The trait approach to charismatic leadership focuses on leader
24
qualities, such as being visionary, energetic, unconventional, and exemplary (House &
Howell, 1992). These characteristics are thought to be representative of charismatic
leaders. The behavioral approach to charismatic leadership contends that there are five
behavioral attributes of charismatic leaders: articulation of a clear vision, sensitivity to
the environment, sensitivity to member needs, personal risk taking, and performing
unconventional behavior (Conger & Kanungo, 1987). While there clearly exists a good
deal of overlap between the dimensions of charismatic leadership and transformational
leadership, the two theories are not interchangeable. For example, whereas
transformational leaders seek to transform followers and the organization, charismatic
leaders do not actively set out to change anything. Charismatic leaders are more focused
on themselves and how they are perceived than on followers or the organization.
Importance o f Morality
A point of departure between authentic leadership and transformational and
charismatic leadership relates to the emphasis placed on morality. For this reason, it is
necessary to define morality as it relates to leadership in organizations. A clear definition
is important because morality is a broad issue that can be culturally bound with an
organization. What is considered to be unethical or amoral in one organization may be
seen as a legitimate method of maximizing profits in another. However, although what
constitutes a moral action may differ from place to place, the construct of morality exists
(in some form) within each of these organizations. The current research seeks to relate
authentic leadership to follower perceptions of their leader’s ethicality and morality. If a
follower perceives a leader to be immoral or unethical, this cognition is important
regardless of the specific action causing the perception. When discussing morality within
25
the context of this study, moral behavior is defined as acting in accordance with the
socially accepted ethical norms of an organization. From a measurement perspective,
utilizing this broad definition of morality does not allow for differences in organizational
culture to affect follower perceptions of a leader’s ethicality. This definition is critical
given that participants in the validation study were employed by different organizations
with potentially different moral cultures. In order to accurately measure perceptions of a
leader’s ethicality across these organizations, it was necessary to utilize this cross-cutting
definition of morality. This definition facilitates the testing of authentic leadership’s
nomological network as well as its divergent validity from transformational and
charismatic leadership.
Transformational and charismatic leadership theories both focus on a leader’s
ability to articulate a clear vision to followers, but make little mention of an inherent
moral/ethical component to a leader’s behavior. This is a crucial distinction due to the
fundamental differences that exist in how perceivers weigh information when making
judgments about an individual’s morality versus ability. Specifically, when judging a
person’s morality, as opposed to ability, observers tend to weigh negative acts more
heavily than positive acts (Martijn, Spears, Van Der Plight, & Jakobs, 1992). For
example, a leader may be charismatic at some times and non-charismatic at other times
and still be considered a charismatic leader. This is because charismatic leadership
focuses on leader’s ability (as opposed to morality) and can be viewed as a continuous
variable. On the other hand, even if a leader almost always acts in accordance with his or
her core self, one digression may cause that leader to be viewed as less authentic. This is
because the negative information is related to the leader’s morality rather than ability.
26
Given that authentic leadership is also viewed as a continuous variable, this digression
would not cause an observer to conclude that the leader is completely inauthentic.
However, the information will be weighed more harshly and have a greater impact on
how the leader is perceived since it is related to morality. These actions are weighed
more harshly because the consequences associated with a leader failing to act ethically
tend to be more severe and long-lasting than those associated with a lapse in his/her
ability to lead an organization.
Some scholars (Cooper, Scandura, & Schriesheim, 2005; Shamir & Eilam, 2005;
Sparrowe, 2005) feel that the inclusion of an inherent moral component will dilute the
meaning of the authentic leadership construct. They see the moral component as a
possible antecedent or consequence of authentic leadership rather than an integral part of
the theory. Instead, the current research seeks to demonstrate that the inherent
moral/ethical component of authentic leadership is one of the factors that best
differentiates it from other leadership theories. This differentiation is important because
the inclusion of a moral component provides a critical addition lacking from current
leadership theories. By focusing on a leader’s morality in relation to his or her core self,
authentic leadership theory can help to shed some light on how and why unethical
business practices occur.
To some extent, both authentic leadership and transformational leadership include
a focus on leader/follower self-awareness and regulation, positive psychological capital,
and the facilitating role of the organizational context. Both authentic and
transformational leaders have been described as optimistic and hopeful. However, there
are important conceptual differences between the two theories that demonstrate they are
27
not one in the same. For example, based on the criteria of Bass and Riggio (2005) or
Bums (1978), it is possible for a leader to be considered authentic but not
transformational. While a transformational leader actively sets out to transform the self-
concepts of their followers, this is not necessarily the case with authentic leaders. A
leader may be authentic without actively seeking to transform his or her followers.
Another key difference between the two theories is that authentic leaders influence their
followers by being in tune with their own sense of self, knowing where they stand on
important issues, and behaving accordingly. Although transformational leaders may also
be in tune with their sense of self, their primary influence processes serve to transform
followers through a powerful vision, an intellectually stimulating idea, attention to their
needs, or having a clear sense of purpose and direction (Bass & Riggio, 2005). In
addition, the vision put forth by transformational leaders does not have to be authentic or
true to their sense of self. Transformational leaders may put forth a vision that is not in
accordance with their values and beliefs in order to influence followers.
There are also differences between authentic leadership theory and the behavioral,
social, and attributional theories of charismatic leadership (Conger & Kanungo, 1987;
Shamir, 1991; Shamir, House & Arthur, 1993). For example, while a focus on
leader/follower self-awareness and self-regulation is central to authentic leadership
theory, it is not mentioned in Conger and Kanungo’s (1987) behavioral theory of
charismatic leadership. The self-concept based theory of charismatic leadership (Shamir,
House & Arthur, 1993) differs from authentic leadership theory because it neglects to
discuss the role that leader self-awareness/regulation plays in the influence process and
also omits the role of positive psychological capital. Additionally, it is thought that
28
authentic leaders influence follower self-awareness of moral issues based on their
individual character, personal example and dedication, rather than on inspirational
appeals, or other forms of impression management associated with charismatic
leadership. With this being said, although there are numerous differences between
authentic, transformational, and charismatic leadership, there are also many
commonalities. For this reason, the prediction of complete conceptual independence
between the three leadership constructs is not tenable. Instead, the differentiation of
authentic leadership from these other forms of leadership will stem from their
incongruent relationships with leader behaviors and follower outcomes.
Identifying a Nomological Network
After developing a concise, yet comprehensive definition of authentic leadership
and examining its relationship to transformational and charismatic leadership, it is
necessary to further map authentic leadership onto a nomological network of related
constructs (Cooper, Scandura, & Schriesheim, 2005). Many leadership scholars predict
that authentic leadership results in increased organizational performance through its
effect on followers (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). However, a conceptual model linking
authentic leadership, follower attitudes and behaviors, and organizational performance
outcomes has not yet been fully explicated. To facilitate this process, the current research
addresses this gap in the literature by examining the processes by which authentic leader
behavior relates to important follower outcomes. The examination of how authentic
leadership relates to organizational performance is beyond the scope of the current
research but should be examined in future research.
29
Given that authentic leadership theory is still in its developmental stages, there
have been numerous propositions related to how authentic leaders can have a positive
impact on their followers. One method of studying this relationship is to examine the
influence tactics and behaviors that are associated with authentic leaders. Through their
mechanisms of influence and their actions, authentic leaders seek to maintain open and
honest relationships with followers and demonstrate authentic behavior. Authentic
leadership scholars have begun to theorize on the potential processes that authentic
leaders utilize in order to influence their followers. The present research seeks to shed
light on the relationship between authentic leadership and positive follower outcomes by
examining the leader behaviors that are associated with these influence tactics.
Specifically, prior qualitative research on authentic leader influence tactics was used as
the basis for predicting authentic leader behaviors.
One of the influence tactics that has received a great deal of research attention is
positive modeling (Avolio, Luthans, & Walumbwa, 2004). Positive modeling by
authentic leaders of self-awareness, self-regulation, and positive psychological states has
been consistently identified as the primary mechanism through which authentic leaders
influence their followers (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Authentic leaders are predicted to
lead by example, and the transparent nature of their decision making processes allows
followers the opportunity to observe, understand and model the actions of the leader.
Similarly, Yukl, Gordon, and Taber (2002) define leading by example as behaving in a
way that is consistent with a person’s espoused values, and setting an example of
dedication, courage, self-sacrifice, and ethical behavior. Authentic leaders are likely to
recognize the positive impact that their core beliefs and values can have on followers, and
30
seek to transfer these cognitions through the modeling of their actions. Thus, leading by
example is predicted to be a primary behavior exhibited by authentic leaders.
A second hypothesized influence tactic associated with authentic leaders is
supporting the self-determination of followers (Avolio, Luthans, & Walumbwa 2004).
Authentic leaders can influence the self-determination of their followers by giving them
the freedom and capability to come to an understanding of their core selves. They
recognize the value in allowing followers to come to an understanding of their core selves
through self-awareness and balanced processing. Similarly, Yukl, Gordon, and Taber
(2002) define empowering as delegating responsibility and authority, allowing more
autonomy and discretion in work activities, and trusting people to solve problems and
make decisions without prior approval. Authentic leaders will recognize the importance
of empowering their followers in helping them to realize high levels of self-awareness
and self-regulation. Thus, empowering is predicted to be a second behavior associated
with authentic leaders.
As mentioned earlier, the authentic action dimension of authentic leadership will
also serve as a behavioral indicator of the construct. As defined earlier, authentic action
refers to engaging in behaviors that are aligned with a person’s true or core self. From
this definition, it is hypothesized that authentic leaders will engage in authentic action as
a method of influencing their followers to behave in a similar manner. Authentic leaders
recognize that they must first engage in authentic behavior before their followers can
become authentic themselves. Thus, the final behavior predicted to be associated with
authentic leaders is authentic action.
31
Hypothesis 2a - Leaders high in authentic leadership will engage in behaviors that
reflect leading by example to a greater extent than leaders low in authentic leadership.
Hypothesis 2b - Leaders high in authentic leadership will engage in behaviors that
reflect empowering to a greater extent than leaders low in authentic leadership.
Hypothesis 2c - Leaders high in authentic leadership will engage in behaviors that
reflect authentic action to a greater extent than leaders low in authentic leadership.
These three leader behaviors (leading by example, empowering, and authentic
action) will serve as the building blocks for the formation of a nomological network
surrounding the authentic leadership construct. In addition, comparison of these three
leader behaviors to behaviors associated with transformational and charismatic leaders
will help to further demonstrate the construct validity of authentic leadership. Based on
prior research, transformational and charismatic leadership are expected to develop
follower abilities by articulating a clear and appealing vision and encouraging them to
challenge the status quo (Yukl, 2002). It is important to note that some leadership
scholars feel that charismatic leaders do not place an emphasis on developing follower
abilities, and only seek to ensure personal development and personal gain. However, in
order for any leader to be successful, he or she must first ensure that their followers are
able to perform their jobs well. Charismatic leaders recognize that poor follower
performance can impact their own development and opportunities for gain, such as
monetary rewards for meeting organizational goals. For this reason, charismatic leaders
will actively seek to develop their follower’s abilities. On the other hand, authentic
leaders are hypothesized to empower their followers to develop themselves by modeling
ethical behavior. Thus, the behavior of authentic leaders should differ from that of
32
transformational and charismatic leaders. For the purposes of this study, developing
behavior is defined as providing coaching, career advice, and opportunities for skill
development, as well as helping people learn how to improve their skills. Encouraging
innovative thinking is defined as challenging people to question their assumptions about
the best way to do work, and asking questions that encourage people to look at problems
in a new way. These behaviors should be more characteristic of transformational and
charismatic leaders than authentic leaders.
Hypothesis 3a - Transformational leadership will be a stronger predictor of developing
behavior than authentic leadership.
Hypothesis 3b - Transformational leadership will be a stronger predictor of behavior
that encourages innovative thinking than authentic leadership.
Hypothesis 3c - Charismatic leadership will be a stronger predictor of developing
behavior than authentic leadership.
Hypothesis 3d - Charismatic leadership will be a stronger predictor of behavior that
encourages innovative thinking than authentic leadership.
The next logical step in identifying and testing the nomological network
surrounding authentic leadership is to relate leader behaviors to follower outcomes. One
well-accepted model of authentic leadership (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, &
Walumbwa, 2005; Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005) focuses on follower eudaemonic
well-being as a key outcome of authenticity. The model contends that authentic
leadership has a positive effect on follower eudaemonic well-being, as defined as a high
level of personal expressiveness that occurs when one experiences intense involvement
and special fit with an activity, and feels intensively alive. The proposed components of
33
follower eudaemonic well-being include personal expressiveness, flow experiences, and
self-efficacy. The concept of eudaemonic well-being is also thought to include peak
experiences of interest, motivation, and joy. In this regard, eudaemonic well-being is
thought to be related to the concept of “flow” (Csikszentmihalyi, 2003). Specifically,
both eudaemonic well-being and “flow” are thought to occur when one is fully engaged
in an activity and existing as one’s true self (Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005). As
part of this experience, one must be aware of their true self in order to ensure an accord
with behavior.
In addition to eudaemonic well-being, the current research seeks to expand the
network of follower outcomes related to authentic leadership to include perceptions of
leader ethicality and affective commitment. As mentioned earlier, one of the main
aspects of authentic leadership that separates it from other forms of leadership is its focus
on a leader’s morality. By acting in accordance with their true selves, authentic leaders
model authentic behavior for their followers. Due to the inherent moral component of the
authentic leadership construct, it is predicted that followers will view their authentic
leaders as ethical. Through leading by example and maintaining an open and honest
relationship with followers, the core ethical values of authentic leaders will be
demonstrated to followers on multiple occasions. These demonstrations will serve to
increase follower perceptions of leader ethicality.
Affective commitment refers to an employee’s emotional attachment to an
organization (Meyer & Allen, 1984). Affective commitment results from an employees’
identification with the goals of an organization, and their desire to remain because they
“want to.” As an agent of the organization, authentic leaders demonstrate high levels of
34
self-awareness, self-regulation, and morality through their cognitions and actions. As a
result, authentic leaders set high standards and goals that their followers can easily
identify with. By identifying with the positive capabilities of an authentic leader,
followers are also creating an emotional connection with the organization itself resulting
in high levels of affective commitment. Meyer and Allen (1984) also identify normative
and continuance commitment as two other forms of attachment to an organization. In
contrast to affective commitment, normative commitment refers to an employee who
feels obligated to remain with an organization. These individuals remain with the
organization because they feel they “ought to.” Continuance commitment exists within
employees who perceive a high cost associated with leaving. These individuals stay with
an organization because they “have to.” While these concepts are not mutually exclusive,
affective commitment has been shown to have the strongest and most favorable
correlations with organization-relevant and employee-relevant outcomes such as
performance and stress (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). Thus,
authentic leaders can have a positive impact on both their followers and the organization
by increasing levels of affective commitment.
Hypothesis 4a - Authentic leadership will be positively related to follower eudaemonic
well-being.
Hypothesis 4b - Authentic leadership will be positively related to follower perceptions
of leader ethicality.
Hypothesis 4c - Authentic leadership will be positively related to follower affective
commitment.
35
To further the distinction between authentic, transformational, and charismatic
leadership, the current research will examine how each of the three leadership constructs
relate to follower outcomes of eudaemonic well-being and perceptions of leader
ethicality. While authentic leadership was predicted to correlate with these outcomes, the
same cannot be said for transformational and charismatic leadership. Authentic leaders
are hypothesized to increase follower eudaemonic well-being and perceptions of leader
ethicality by being aware of their core values and modeling moral behavior. However,
transformational and charismatic leadership are hypothesized to engage in different
behaviors, resulting in different employee outcomes. For example, research has shown
transformational and charismatic leadership to be predictors of employee satisfaction and
engagement (Yukl, 2002). Transformational and charismatic leaders do not increase
follower eudaemonic well-being because they do not focus on whether or not employees
are behaving in accordance with their true selves. As a result, followers will not be able
to achieve the “flow” state associated with eudaemonic well-being. Also,
transformational and charismatic leadership should not be positively related to follower
perceptions of leader ethicality due to a lack of emphasis on the importance of moral
leader behavior. Conversely, authentic leaders seek to ensure their followers observe
moral behavior during all interactions. Thus, authentic leadership should be a stronger
predictor of eudaemonic well-being and perceptions of ethicality than transformational or
charismatic leadership. No prediction is made regarding differential relationships with
affective commitment, as all three forms of leadership are thought to impact this variable
(Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004).
36
Hypothesis 5a - Authentic leadership will be a stronger predictor of follower
eudaemonic well-being than will be transformational leadership.
Hypothesis 5b - Authentic leadership will be a stronger predictor of follower
perceptions of leader ethicality than will be transformational leadership.
Hypothesis 5c - Authentic leadership will be a stronger predictor of follower
eudaemonic well-being than will be charismatic leadership.
Hypothesis 5d - Authentic leadership will be a stronger predictor of follower
perceptions of leader ethicality than will be charismatic leadership.
Based on this review of the literature, the current study seeks to develop a model
depicting the relationship between authentic leadership and the leader behaviors and
follower outcomes discussed above. The model of Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May and
Walumbwa (2005) conceptualizes authentic leadership as a global independent variable
affecting a global dependent variable in the form of sustainable organizational
performance. The current model takes a more narrow focus by seeking to relate the
construct of authentic leadership to specific dependent variable measures. It is predicted
that, through the use of leading by example, empowering, and authentic action, authentic
leaders are able to have a positive impact on their follower’s eudaemonic well-being,
perceptions of leader ethicality, and affective commitment to the organization. Figure 1
depicts the hypothesized relationships.
Hypothesis 6a - Leading by example will mediate the relationship between leader
authenticity and follower eudaemonic well-being.
Hypothesis 6b - Leading by example will mediate the relationship between leader
authenticity and follower perceptions of leader ethicality.
37
Hypothesis 6c - Leading by example will mediate the relationship between leader
authenticity and follower affective commitment.
Hypothesis 6d - Leader empowering behavior will mediate the relationship between
leader authenticity and follower eudaemonic well-being.
Hypothesis 6e - Leader empowering behavior will mediate the relationship between
leader authenticity and follower perceptions of leader ethicality.
Hypothesis 6f - Leader empowering behavior will mediate the relationship between
leader authenticity and follower affective commitment.
Hypothesis 6g - Authentic action will mediate the relationship between leader
authenticity and follower eudaemonic well-being.
Hypothesis 6h - Authentic action will mediate the relationship between leader
authenticity and follower perceptions of leader ethicality.
Hypothesis 6i - Authentic action will mediate the relationship between leader
authenticity and follower affective commitment.
38
Figure 1. Visual depiction o f the hypothesized relationships between authentic
leadership, leader behaviors, and follower outcomes.
Follower Outcomes
Leader Behaviors
Eudaemonic
Leading by Well-Being
Example
Authentic Perceptions
Empowering of Leader
Leadership
Behavior Ethicality
Authentic Affective
Action Commitment
39
Chapter 3: Pilot Study
40
Methodology
Participants
One hundred and seventeen (117) undergraduate students from the University at
Albany participated in the pilot study. All pilot study participants were recruited through
the psychology department’s research pool and received course credit for taking part in
the survey. The pilot sample consisted of 64 females (54.7%) and 41 males (35.0%),
with 12 (10.3%) respondents leaving the gender question unanswered. Fifty-three of the
participants (45.3%) were in their freshman year of college, 25 (21.4%) were
sophomores, 18 (15.4%) were juniors and 9 (7.7%) were seniors. Twelve participants
(10.3%) did not identify their year in school. The majority of participants (93.2%)
reported having served under their current supervisor for six months to one year.
Students in the pilot sample completed the subordinate perceptions authentic
leadership scale consisting of draft items as a preliminary method of determining final
items for the validation study. In order to be recruited for participation in the pilot
sample, participants had to meet the requirement of having served under a single direct
supervisor or manager for at least six months. Six months of work experience under a
single supervisor was required because it was deemed a sufficient amount of time to form
reliable perceptions of a leader’s behavior. Students meeting this requirement were in a
better position to complete the subordinate perceptions authentic leadership scale in
reference to their immediate supervisor than those who had not served under their current
supervisor for six months. Participants from the pilot sample also completed subordinate
perception measures of transformational and charismatic leadership. All measures were
41
included on an 11-page, pencil and paper survey which took approximately 45 minutes to
complete.
The primary purpose of the pilot sample was to select and finalize the items to be
incorporated in the authentic leadership scale used in the validation study. Selection of
items was based on an examination of item variability, factor structure, item-total
correlations, and scale reliability. As a secondary purpose, the pilot sample was used to
examine the divergent validity of authentic leadership construct by examining its
relationship with transformational and charismatic leadership.
Procedure
The items included in the pilot authentic leadership scale were created using input
from three sources. First, five upper-level psychology graduate students were recruited to
assist in the development of items to be included in the measure. Each graduate student
was presented with a detailed definition of the authentic leadership construct as well as its
four hypothesized dimensions. Table 3 presents the dimensions and their definitions as
they were provided to the graduate students. The graduate students were then instructed
to write eight to ten Likert-type items for each of the four dimensions. The result of this
effort was the creation of 92 items.
42
Table 3
Authentic Leadership Dimensions and their Definitions
Dimension____________________Definition________________________________
Self-awareness Awareness and acceptance of one’s own motives,
feelings, desires, and self-relevant cognitions;
before one can act in accordance with their
beliefs, they must be aware of them and accept
them.
Balanced processing of self- Evaluation of the information gained from being
relevant information self-aware; authentic leaders will process all types
of self-information, regardless of it is positive or
negative.
Authentic action Behaving in accordance with one’s deep-seated
values, preferences, and needs; this is the essence
of authenticity, it is when a person acts in
accordance with their beliefs, values, etc.
Relational Transparency Recognizing, valuing, and striving to achieve
openness and honesty in relationships with others;
authentic leaders recognize the importance of
being open and honest with others.
The second source of items for the pilot authentic leadership scale was previously
published authenticity scales. These scales were examined for items that could be
43
relevant to a leadership context. Many of the items in these scales pertained to
authenticity within the context of everyday life, and relatively few were identified as
relevant to a leadership context. Potentially relevant items were reviewed by the author
and semantic changes were made where necessary for their inclusion. This resulted in
the creation of 23 additional items. Finally, previously established leadership scales
measuring honesty, integrity, and fairness were examined. Items from these scales were
reviewed by the author to determine their relevance for the four hypothesized dimensions
of authentic leadership. Items that were judged to be relevant were rewritten (if
necessary) and incorporated into the pilot scale. This resulted in a total of 11 items. In
total, the three phases of item creation resulted in the development of 126 items; 35 for
self-awareness, 27 for balanced processing, 31 for authentic action, and 33 for relational
transparency.
Given that the authentic leadership construct is hypothesized to be
multidimensional in nature, it was crucial to ensure that the items included in the measure
would map onto the appropriate dimensions. Toward this end, four undergraduate
students were recruited to blindly sort the scale items into one of five categories: self-
awareness, balanced processing, authentic action, relational transparency, or other.
Students were presented with the dimension definitions from Table 3 and a list of all
potential scale items in a random order. They were then asked to classify each item into
the dimension that they felt was most fitting. Percent agreement statistics were calculated
for each item based on these ratings, and items that did not reach at least 50% agreement
were reviewed by the author for possible exclusion from the pilot study. Items were
excluded from the pilot scale if they did not meet the 50% agreement criteria and the
44
author determined that they did not overlap the appropriate construct dimension. This
process resulted in the deletion of 51 items.
Following the results of the item creation procedure, the pilot authentic leadership
scale consisted of 75 items; 18 for self-awareness, 16 for balanced processing, 20 for
authentic action, and 21 for relational transparency. Participants in the pilot study
completed the preliminary authentic leadership items along with measures of
transformational and charismatic leadership. The transformational leadership scale
assessed four dimensions; high performance expectations, individualized support,
intellectual stimulation, and a ‘core’ transformational construct (Podsakoff, MacKenzie,
Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). The charismatic leadership scale assessed six dimensions;
vision and articulation, environmental sensitivity, unconventional behavior, personal risk,
sensitivity to personal needs, and not maintaining the status quo (Conger & Kanungo,
1994). Psychometric information for the transformational and charismatic leadership
scales, including reliability and factor structure, can be found in the description of
validation study measures.
Results
Variability and Factor Structure
Table 4 presents descriptive statistics for pilot study variables. Examination of
the standard deviation for all pilot study variables showed sufficient variability to
continue with the analyses. However, the aggregate charismatic leadership variable
demonstrated skewness and kurtosis values greater than twice the standard error of the
skewness (0.47) and standard error of the kurtosis (0.95). As a result, the distribution of
charismatic leadership scores was significantly negatively skewed and exhibited
45
platykurtosis. Charismatic leadership subscales of vision and articulation, environmental
sensitivity, and sensitivity to personal needs as well as transformational leadership
subscales of high performance expectations, intellectual stimulation, and the ‘core’
transformational construct also showed problematic negative skewness values using this
criteria. Significant skewness and kurtosis values indicated that some of the validation
study variables were not normally distributed. As a result of the normality assumption
associated with pilot study analyses, transformation of these variables was considered.
However, transformations were ultimately not performed for two reasons. First,
transformation of the variables did not significantly affect the problematic skewness or
kurtosis values. The assumption of normality would still be violated using transformed
variables. Second, due to the alteration of data point spacing caused by a transformation,
the interpretation of transformed variables becomes increasingly complex. Rather than
drawing conclusions regarding the variable in raw form, transformed variables must be
interpreted in relation to how they have been altered (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). For
these reasons, variable transformations were not performed.
The factor structure of the initial 75-item subordinate perceptions authentic
leadership scale was examined with an exploratory factor analysis utilizing a forced four-
factor solution, a principle components extraction method, and a varimax rotation. In
addition to the four-factor solution, a three-factor and a five-factor solution were also
examined. However, the four-factor solution provided the strongest factor loadings based
on the hypothesized dimensions of authentic leadership. Principle components extraction
was appropriate given that the goal of this analysis was data reduction and, at this point, a
46
Table 4
Descriptive Statistics fo r Pilot Study Variables
Skewness Kurtosis
Variable____ N Min Max Mean SD Alpha Value SE Value SE
Self- 105 11 35 23.99 4.23 0.82 -0.09 0.24 0.67 0.47
Awareness
Balanced 109 7 28 16.30 4.86 0.81 0.17 0.23 -0.65 0.46
Processing
Authentic 109 15 35 23.96 4.47 0.83 0.20 0.23 -0.74 0.46
Action
Relational 117 14 35 25.79 5.08 0.83 -0.29 0.22 -0.62 0.44
Transp.
Authentic 105 64 129 89.71 13.75 0.89 0.28 0.24 -0.44 0.47
Ldrship
HighPerf. 109 3 21 14.83 4.54 0.89 -0.78 0.23 0.01 0.46
Expect.
Individual. 109 4 28 19.35 5.50 0.87 -0.46 0.23 -0.05 0.46
Support
Intellect. 109 4 28 18.51 5.71 0.92 -0.70 0.23 0.20 0.46
Stim.
Core 109 18 84 57.45 14.76 0.93 -0.57 0.23 0.29 0.46
Trans.
Transform. 107 58 161 112.58 22.05 0.95 -0.45 0.23 0.64 0.46
Ldrship
47
Skewness Kurtosis
Variable N Min M ax Mean SD Alpha Value SE Value SE

V ision and 108 9 42 28.61 7.45 0.89 -0.58 0.23 -0.20 0.46
Artie.
Environ. 109 15 49 35.59 7.74 0.87 -0.57 0.23 -0.18 0.46
Sensitiv.
Unconven. 109 3 21 12.46 4.59 0.89 0.04 0.23 -0.75 0.46
Behavior
Personal 108 4 27 14.96 5.89 0.86 -0.03 0.23 -0.90 0.46
Risk
Sensitivity 108 3 21 14.69 4.80 0.94 -0.61 0.23 -0.62 0.46
to Needs
N ot Status 108 2 13 6.19 2.62 0.83 0.33 0.23 -0.53 0.46
Quo
Charis. 107 30 153 109.59 25.56 0.91 -0.94 0.23 1.08 0.46
Ldrship
Note. SD = Standard Deviation and SE = Standard Error.
mathematical (as opposed to theoretical) solution was desired. Principle components
extraction seeks a linear combination of variables such that the maximum variance is
extracted, and analyzes both common and unique variance. A varimax rotation was used
due to the fact that the four dimensions of authentic leadership were not thought to be
highly correlated. However, post hoc analyses demonstrated that the four dimensions of
authentic leadership were significantly correlated with one another, leading the researcher
to re-run the analysis using a direct oblimin (non-orthogonal) rotation. Overall, the type
48
of rotation employed did not significantly change the resulting factor solution. Results of
the final pilot study factor analysis are presented based on both varimax and direct
oblimin rotations.
Two factor analysis iterations were conducted to reduce the authentic leadership
scale to a desirable number of items. The initial factor analysis included all 75 authentic
leadership items retained following the item development and sorting procedures. The
focus of the first factor analysis was to examine the loading patterns of the authentic
leadership items. Any item demonstrating a factor loading statistic of 0.30 or higher on
its hypothesized dimension was retained for further analysis. Crossloadings were not
taken into consideration at this point due to the fact that removal of low-loading items
would likely change the loading patterns during the second iteration of the factor
analysis. This process resulted in the retention of 43 authentic leadership items; 10 for
self-awareness, 9 for balanced processing, 13 for authentic action, and 11 for relational
transparency.
The second iteration of the factor analysis included only the 43 authentic
leadership items retained following the first iteration. The goal of the second iteration
was to examine both the factor loadings and crossloading for all items. Crossloadings
were crucial to this process, as the items retained from the second iteration of the factor
analysis would form the content of the authentic leadership scale. Again using 0.30 as a
minimum cutoff, items demonstrating a high factor loading on their hypothesized
dimension were further considered for inclusion in the authentic leadership scale. In
addition, the crossloadings of the authentic leadership items were examined to determine
if any items loaded highly on multiple dimensions. At this point, items showing low
49
factor loadings (i.e., below 0.30) or high factor crossloadings (i.e., above 0.30) were
removed from the authentic leadership scale. This process resulted in the creation of a
20-item authentic leadership scale, consisting of five items for each dimension.
Reliability
The reliability of the 20-item authentic leadership scale was examined next.
Cronbach’s alpha for the reliability of the full 20-item scale was 0.87, indicating strong
inter-item consistency. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.82 for the self-awareness subscale, 0.72
for the balanced processing subscale, 0.83 for the authentic action subscale, and 0.75 for
the relational transparency subscale. However, examination of the corrected item-total
correlations showed one balanced processing item and one relational transparency item
demonstrating correlation coefficients lower than 0.15. As a result, these items
underwent further analysis in order to determine if they would be retained in the final
measure. Upon further examination, it was determined that deletion of these two items
resulted in increased reliability for the whole scale as well as for the balanced processing
and relational transparency sub-scales. As a result, the items were removed from the
final authentic leadership scale.
In an effort to keep the four dimensions of authentic leadership balanced in item
number, exploratory factor analyses were re-run in an effort to obtain an additional item
for both the balanced processing and relational transparency sub-scales. The results of
these additional factor analyses found a relational transparency item that met the factor
loading and crossloading criteria, and also could be used as a substitute without lowering
the full scale alpha or sub-scale alpha. This additional relational transparency item was
retained in the final authentic leadership scale. However, an item was not found that
50
could be used as a suitable replacement for the problematic balanced processing item. As
a result, the final authentic leadership scale consisted of 19 items; four items for balanced
processing and five items for each of the other three dimensions. Appendix A depicts the
final items within each of the four dimensions. Table 5 depicts the factor analysis rotated
component matrix for the revised 19-item authentic leadership scale based on a varimax
rotation. Table 6 presents the results of the same factor analysis using a direct oblimin
rotation. Based on the direct oblimin rotation, factor loadings for the self-awareness
dimension ranged from 0.54 to 0.76, balanced processing loadings ranged from 0.68 to
0.81, authentic action loadings ranged from 0.59 to 0.78, and relational transparency
loadings ranged from 0.61 to 0.81.
Cronbach’s alpha for the revised 19-item authentic leadership scale was 0.89.
The alpha value was 0.82 for the self-awareness subscale, 0.81 for the balanced
processing subscale, 0.83 for the authentic action subscale, and 0.83 for the relational
transparency subscale. Table 7 shows the correlations among the four dimensions of the
authentic leadership scale from the pilot study. Correlations among the subscales ranged
from 0.30 to 0.50, with the weakest relationship being between balanced processing and
relational transparency, and the strongest relationship being between self-awareness and
relational transparency. Overall, results from the pilot study provide evidence for
Hypothesis 1. Authentic leadership can be effectively measured using a 19-item scale
consisting of four distinct dimensions.
51
Table 5
Pilot Study Rotated Component Matrix fo r the 19-item Authentic Leadership Scale
(Varimax Rotation)
Dimension
Balanced Authentic Relational
Item Self-awareness processing action transparency
SA Item 1 0.60 0.41 0.12 0.29
SA Item 2 0.73 0.21 0.06 0.21
SA Item 3 0.64 0.30 -0.06 0.27
SA Item 4 0.73 -0.01 0.15 0.14
SA Item 5 0.77 -0.02 0.41 0.04
BP Item 1 0.07 0.74 0.01 0.12
BP Item 2 0.08 0.80 0.05 0.14
BP Item 3 0.22 0.80 0.17 0.02
BP Item 4 0.09 0.69 0.33 0.13
AA Item 1 0.33 0.01 0.74 -0.02
AA Item 2 0.10 -0.02 0.61 0.27
AA Item 3 0.15 0.36 0.78 0.21
AA Item 4 -0.05 0.18 0.71 0.33
AA Item 5 0.10 0.16 0.78 0.18
RT Item 1 0.21 0.27 0.18 0.70
RT Item 2 0.34 0.04 0.20 0.65
52
Dimension
Item__________ Self-awareness processing________action______ transparency

RT Item 3 0.34 -0.01 0.17 0.61
RT Item 4 0.18 0.07 0.15 0.73
RT Item 5 -0.06 0.21 0.21 0.78
Note. Principle components analysis extraction method and varimax rotation method used. SA = Self-
awareness, BP = Balanced Processing, AA = Authentic Action, RT = Relational Transparency. Item
numbers correspond to items listed in Appendix A.
53
Table 6
Pilot Study Rotated Component Matrix fo r the 19-item Authentic Leadership Scale
(Direct Oblimin Rotation)
Dimension
SA Item 1 0.54 0.35 -0.01 -0.19
SA Item 2 0.72 0.14 -0.05 -0.12
SA Item 3 0.61 0.25 -0.19 -0.21
SA Item 4 0.73 -0.08 0.07 -0.06
SA Item 5 0.76 -0.09 0.36 0.09
BP Item 1 -0.01 0.75 -0.07 -0.04
BP Item 2 -0.01 0.81 -0.03 -0.04
BP Item 3 0.15 0.81 0.10 0.12
BP Item 4 -0.02 0.68 0.27 -0.01
AA Item 1 0.28 -0.05 0.76 0.16
AA Item 2 0.01 -0.09 0.59 -0.21
AA Item 3 0.02 0.29 0.76 -0.06
AA Item 4 -0.19 0.11 0.69 -0.25
AA Item 5 -0.02 0.10 0.78 -0.06
RT Item 1 0.07 0.16 0.04 0.70
RT Item 2 0.23 -0.08 0.08 0.65
54
Dimension
Item___________Self-awareness processing_______ action______ transparency

RT Item 3 0.24 -0.12 0.05 0.61
RT Item 4 0.05 -0.04 0.02 0.76
RT Item 5 -0.23 0.11 0.09 0.81
Note. Principle components analysis extraction method and direct oblimin rotation method used. SA =
Self-awareness, BP = Balanced Processing, AA = Authentic Action, RT = Relational Transparency. Item
Relationship with Other Forms o f Leadership
The 19-item authentic leadership scale was correlated with measures of both
transformational and charismatic leadership. Correlations between the four dimensions
of authentic leadership and four dimensions of transformational leadership can be found
in Table 8. Overall, pilot study results showed strong positive correlations between all
dimensions of authentic leadership and all dimensions of transformational leadership,
with the exception of balanced processing. Balanced processing was found to be
uncorrelated with the performance expectations dimension of transformational leadership
(r = 0.17, /? > 0.05). Pearson’s correlation coefficient for the relationship between the
aggregate authentic leadership measure and the aggregate transformational leadership
measure was 0.70, indicating that approximately 49.0% of the variance in the authentic
leadership measure can be explained by transformational leadership. When corrected for
attenuation, the correlation increased to 0.76. Correlations among the subscales of the
constructs ranged from 0.17 to 0.56, with the weakest relationship being between
55
balanced processing and high performance expectations, and the strongest relationship
being between self-awareness and the ‘core’ transformational construct.
Table 7
Correlations Among Dimensions o f Authentic Leadership (Pilot Study)
___________________ Self-awareness processing______ action transparency
Self-awareness
Balanced processing 0.44*
Authentic action 0.48* 0.37*
Relational 0.50* 0.30* 0.44*
transparency
Note. * denotes correlations significant at the 0.05 level.
56
Table 8
Correlations Among Dimensions o f Authentic Leadership and Dimensions o f
Transformational Leadership (Pilot Study)
Performance Individual Intellectual Core Transform.
______________ Expectations Support Stimulation Construct Leadership
Self- 0.34* 0.48* 0.42* 0.56* 0.58*
Awareness
Balanced 0.17 0.50* 0.35* 0.53* 0.52*
Processing
Authentic 0.41* 0.40* 0.37* 0.53* 0.54*
Action
Relational 0.40* 0.49* 0.50* 0.56* 0.61*
Transparency
Authentic 0.37* 0.63* 0.50* 0.67* 0.70*
Leadership
Note: Authentic leadership and transformational leadership variables were created by summing all subscale
ratings. * denotes that a correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.
57
Correlations between the four dimensions of the authentic leadership scale and six
dimensions of the charismatic leadership scale can be found in Table 9. Results showed
significant positive correlations between the dimensions of authentic leadership and
vision and articulation, environmental sensitivity, and sensitivity to needs.
Unconventional behavior, personal risk, and not maintaining the status quo were found to
be mostly uncorrelated with authentic leadership dimensions. The only significant
positive correlation among these three variables and the dimensions of authentic
leadership existed between personal risk and relational transparency (r = 0.28,/? < 0.05).
Unconventional behavior and balanced processing were significantly negatively
correlated (r = -0.23,/? < 0.05), and not maintaining the status quo was found to be
uncorrelated with all four dimensions of authentic leadership. The correlation between
the aggregate authentic leadership scale and the aggregate charismatic leadership scale
was 0.53, indicating that approximately 28.1% of the variance in the authentic leadership
measure was explained by charismatic leadership. When corrected for attenuation, this
correlation increased to 0.59. Correlations among the subscales of the constructs ranged
from -0.23 to 0.63, with the weakest relationship being between balanced processing and
unconventional behavior, and the strongest relationship being between self-awareness
and sensitivity to personal needs. Additionally, the aggregate transformational and
charismatic leadership measures were found to be significantly correlated (r = 0.77,/? <
0.05). Results of these preliminary analyses indicate that authentic leadership appears to
be highly related to transformational leadership, while its relationship with charismatic
leadership does not appear as strong. It should also be noted that authentic leadership is
58
less strongly related to charismatic and transformational leadership than the latter are to
each other.
Table 9
Correlations Among Dimensions o f Authentic Leadership and Dimensions o f Charismatic
Leadership (Pilot Study)
Vision Env. Unconv. Pers. Needs Charis.
____________Artie.____ Sens. Beh._____ Risk____ Sens. Not SQ Ldrship
Self- 0.43* 0.49* -0.02 0.17 0.63* -0.08 0.49*
Aware.
Balanced 0.26* 0.34* -0.23* 0.01 0.53* 0.03 0.29*
Process.
Authentic 0.39* 0.53* -0.03 0.15 0.52* -0.19 0.41*
Action
Relation 0.52* 0.54* 0.08 0.28* 0.62* -0.08 0.58*
Transp.
Authentic 0.46* 0.56* -0.05 0.18 0.73* -0.08 0.53*
Ldrship
Note: Authentic leadership and charismatic leadership variables were created by summing all subscale
59
Discussion
Results of the pilot study demonstrate that authentic leadership can be reliably
measured using a scale consisting of items designed to measure four dimensions; self-
awareness, balanced processing of self-relevant information, authentic action, and
relational transparency. Utilizing an exploratory factor analysis, the original list of 75
potential authentic leadership items was reduced to 19 items mapping onto the four
hypothesized dimensions. In addition, Cronbach’s alpha index of reliability for the 19-
item authentic leadership measure exceeded conventional levels of acceptability for both
research and practice. Development of this measure is an important first step in coming
to a better understanding of the authentic leadership construct. Results from the pilot
study suggest that authentic leaders are those who are aware of their core cognitions,
equally evaluate both their positive and negative attributes, act in accordance with their
true selves, and strive for openness and honesty in relationships with others.
Pilot study results also demonstrated a high degree of overlap between the
dimensions of authentic leadership and the dimensions of transformational leadership, but
only a moderate degree of overlap between authentic and charismatic leadership
dimensions. Significant overlap was found between all four dimensions of authentic
leadership and all four dimensions of transformational leadership. However, the four
dimensions of authentic leadership only appeared to overlap three of the six dimensions
associated with charismatic leadership. While there was no prediction that authentic
leadership would be uncorrelated with transformational and charismatic leadership, it is
particularly unsettling that transformational leadership explained almost 50% of the
variance in authentic leadership. Charismatic leadership explained much less variance in
60
authentic leadership, providing evidence that authentic leadership is not redundant with
charismatic leadership. However, there is still enough overlap between authentic and
charismatic leadership to warrant additional exploration. Significant correlations among
these three forms of leadership are likely driven by their commonalities, such as a focus
on follower self-awareness or self-regulation.
The pilot study provides preliminary evidence for the construct validity of the
authentic leadership scale. The factor structure of the authentic leadership scale, as well
as its correlations with the other forms of leadership, was further examined during the
validation study. As mentioned earlier, authentic leadership was hypothesized to differ
from transformational and charismatic leadership based on its differential relationships
with certain leader behaviors and follower outcomes. This prediction was also examined
during the validation study. Finally, the validation study was designed to test the
relationship between authentic leadership and relevant variables from the construct’s
nomological network. A description of the validation study methodology and results is
presented in the next section.
61
Chapter 4: Validation Study
62
Methodology
Participants
Participants in the validation sample were recruited through their involvement in
the Presidential Management Fellows program (PMF). The PMF program is a federally-
funded training and placement initiative that provides accepted applicants with the
opportunity to begin a career in the federal government. Eight hundred and thirteen
federal employees were invited to participate in an authentic leadership survey. Of that
number, 277 individuals submitted a survey for a response rate of 34.1%. Data cleaning
procedures revealed 24 participants who did not meet the criteria of completing at least
60% of the survey questions, and 31 participants who did not meet the criteria of serving
under a single direct supervisor for at least 6 months. Following deletion of these cases,
222 federal government employees were included in the final sample. The final
validation sample consisted of 131 females (59.0%) and 88 males (39.6%), with 3 (1.4%)
respondents leaving the gender question unanswered. Two hundred and eight
participants (93.7%) had been with their current supervisor between six months and one
year. The majority of federal employees participating in the survey (74.8%) were
between the ages of 26 and 35.
Non-response bias has been identified by researchers as the potential for survey
respondents to answer questions differently than those who choose not to respond. This
may increase the probability that the sample is not representative of the population. Non
response bias often occurs due to participant lack of interest in or aversion to the subject
matter. The validation study questionnaire asked participants to respond to items of an
ethical nature in reference to their supervisor or manager, which some employees may be
63
reluctant to do. However, it is impossible to know whether non-responders are those
employees who do not trust the confidentiality of the survey process or those who are too
busy to even read the survey. For this reason, it is difficult to estimate the potential
characteristics of those who did not respond to the survey. Without evidence to show a
non-response bias, the current research assumes that random sampling from the
population resulted in an equal distribution of population characteristics across all survey
participants.
The participants were asked to complete the authentic leadership scale, measures
of transformation and charismatic leadership, and a battery of scales assessing leader
behaviors and subordinate outcomes. Completion of the survey took approximately one
hour, and participants were given the option of saving their place on the survey and
returning at a later time. The primary purpose of the validation sample was to further
examine the factor structure and reliability of the authentic leadership scale as well as to
examine the relationship between authentic leadership and the hypothesized leader
behaviors and follower outcomes. This sample was also used to examine the construct
validity of authentic leadership by differentiating it from transformational and
charismatic leadership.
Procedures
Eight hundred and thirteen (813) federal employees were sent an email invitation
to participate in the online validation survey. The email invitation contained a
personalized link that, when clicked, brought participants directly to the online survey via
a secure web portal containing the study’s measures. Participants were asked to complete
the subordinate perceptions authentic leadership scale in reference to their immediate
64
supervisor. They also completed measures of the behaviors used by their immediate
supervisor, a battery of scales assessing relevant subordinate outcomes depicted in the
authentic leadership model, and measures of transformational leadership and charismatic
leadership. The validation survey remained open for five weeks. Participants received
two email reminders to complete the survey. The first reminder was sent two weeks after
the opening of the survey and the second was sent four weeks after the opening of the
survey. Appendix B contains the validation study survey, including a copy of all scales.
Employees serving as participants in the validation sample did not receive any form of
compensation for their time, but were offered a copy of the final paper.
Measures
Participants in the validation study completed the following measures:
Demographics. Participants in the validation sample were asked to report age
range (in intervals of nine years), gender, amount of time with their current agency, and
amount of time under their current supervisor (reported in ranges).
Subordinate Perceptions o f Authentic Leadership Scale. The scale consists of the
19 items retained following the pilot sample analyses. All items were rated on a 7-point
Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Transformational Leadership. Transformational leadership was measured using a
23-item scale assessing four dimensions of transformational leadership; high performance
expectations, individualized support, intellectual stimulation, and a “core”
transformational construct (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter, 1990). The
“core” transformational construct consists of articulating a clear vision, providing an
appropriate model, and fostering group goals. Internal consistency reliabilities for the
65
four dimensions of transformational leadership have been shown to range from 0.78 to
0.92. In addition, a prior factor analysis of the transformational leadership scale showed
a Tucker Lewis goodness-of-fit index (TLI) of 0.97 for the four-dimensional model,
indicating a strong model fit. All items were rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging
from strongly disagree to strongly agree. An example item is, “My supervisor has a clear
understanding of where our group is going.”
Charismatic Leadership. Charismatic leadership was measured using a 25-item
scale assessing six dimensions of charismatic leadership; vision and articulation,
environmental sensitivity, unconventional behavior, personal risk, sensitivity to personal
needs, and not maintaining the status quo (Conger & Kanungo, 1994). Past research has
shown internal consistency reliabilities ranging from 0.62 to 0.84 for the six dimensions.
Test-retest reliabilities ranged from 0.69 to 0.84. A prior factor analysis of the scale
showed a goodness-of-fit index (GFI) of 0.94 for the six-dimensional model. Divergent
validity evidence has also shown that the measure was conceptually independent from
task-oriented leadership. All items were rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging
from strongly disagree to strongly agree. An example item is, “My supervisor is an
exciting public speaker.”
Leader Behaviors. Four leader behaviors were measured using a subset of items
from Yukl, Gordon, and Taber’s (2002) Managerial Practices Survey (MPS); leading by
example, empowering, developing, and encouraging innovative thinking. The instrument
was designed to measure categories of behavior associated with managerial effectiveness.
The original version of the measure was developed to assess 23 categories of leadership
behavior, but has been refined over time to assess less than 13 categories (depending on
66
the version in question). The scales included in the MPS have been used in research to
study leader behavior, as well as in practice to provide feedback to leaders. Internal
consistency reliabilities for the behavioral scales in the MPS, including the four used in
this study, have been shown to range from 0.80 to 0.93 across four different samples
(Yukl, Wall, & Lepsinger, 1990). The scales asked participants to report the extent to
which their supervisor used each of the leader behaviors, and all items were rated on a 5-
point Likert-type scale ranging from “Not at all” to “A great extent.” An example item
is, “My supervisor asks questions that help you learn how to perform a task better.”
Subordinate Eudaemonic Well-Being. Eudaemonic well-being was measured
using a six-item scale. Scale items were adapted from Waterman’s (1993) Personally
Expressive Activities Questionnaire (PEAQ), which asks respondents to answer items in
reference to a favorite activity. Items were modified by the researcher to refer to the
respondent’s job rather than favorite activity. Past research has shown the one week test-
retest reliability of the original scale to be 0.82 and the coefficient alpha to be 0.90.
Divergent validity evidence showed the measure to be conceptually independent of
hedonic enjoyment. All items were rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from
strongly disagree to strongly agree. An example item is, “My job gives me a strong
feeling that this is who I really am.”
Perceptions o f Leader Ethicality. Perceptions of leader ethicality were measured
using items adapted from a nine-item managerial morality scale (Masuda, 2005). Items
in the original scale were intended to be answered by leaders. The current author
modified scale items to be applicable for a subordinate sample by changing the point of
reference from the self to the respondent’s supervisor. The scale assessed three
67
dimensions of managerial morality: honesty, integrity, and justice. Based on past
research, the average coefficient alpha value across the three dimensions was 0.61, which
is slightly below the conventionally accepted value of 0.70. The honesty subscale
demonstrated a coefficient alpha of 0.71. In addition, results of a confirmatory factor
analysis validated the three-dimensional model with a GFI value of 0.97. All items were
rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. An
example item is, “My supervisor will lie in order to get what he/she wants.”
Affective Commitment. Affective commitment was measured using an eight-item
scale designed to assess positive feelings of identification with, attachment to, and
involvement in, a work organization. The Affective Commitment Scale (ACS) was
created by Meyer and Allen (1984) and has demonstrated a coefficient alpha value of
0.87. Allen and Meyer (1996) reported that test-retest reliabilities for the ACS have been
consistently above 0.70 and the scale has demonstrated divergent validity from measures
of normative and continuance commitment. All items were rated on a 7-point Likert-type
scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. An example item is, “This
organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me.”
68
Results
Variability and Factor Structure
Descriptive statistics for all variables included in the validation study are
presented in Table 10. Based on the standard deviations, sufficient variability was found
for all validation study variables. However, all but five variables assessed during the
validation study exhibited significant skewness values greater than twice the standard
error of the skewness (0.33). Developing others, not maintaining the status quo,
encouraging innovative thinking, eudaemonic well-being, and affective commitment
were the only variables to fall within the acceptable range of skewness values. This
finding is most likely a reflection of the survey content. For example, participants may
be reluctant to respond to questions regarding their supervisor or organization in a
negative manner, resulting in higher scores on these variables. This could cause a
negatively skewed distribution. Kurtosis values for four validation study variables were
greater than twice the standard error of the kurtosis (0.66); authentic action, developing
others, encouraging innovative thinking, and eudaemonic well-being. Again, for the
simplicity of interpretation, data transformations were not performed (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2001). Correlations among all aggregate variables included in the validation study
are shown in Table 11.
69
Table 10
Descriptive Statistics fo r Validation Study Variables
Skewness Kurtosis
Variable N Min Max Mean SD Alpha Value SE Value SE
Self- 215 7 35 24.70 5.86 0.85 -0.43 0.17 0.18 0.33
Aware.
Balan. 216 4 28 18.47 5.16 0.80 -0.43 0.17 -0.10 0.33
Process.
Authen. 222 5 35 26.52 5.85 0.93 -0.89 0.16 1.28 0.33
Action
Rel. 222 5 35 25.35 6.64 0.88 -0.82 0.16 0.02 0.33
Transp.
Authen. 212 24 98 68.58 15.36 0.95 0.56 0.17 -0.11 0.33
Ldrship
Perf. 222 5 21 14.35 3.56 0.64 -0.41 0.16 -0.29 0.33
Expect.
Indiv. 222 7 28 19.22 4.65 0.76 -0.77 0.16 0.27 0.33
Support
Intell. 222 7 28 20.32 4.50 0.76 -0.71 0.16 0.12 0.33
Stim.
Core 222 16 84 58.53 13.95 0.92 -0.57 0.16 0.01 0.33
Trans.
Trans. 222 36 159 112.42 24.90 0.95 0.62 0.16 0.10 0.33
Ldrship
70
Skewness Kurtosis

Vision 222 8 40 27.12 6.85 0.85 -0.46 0.16 0.10 0.33
Artie.
Environ. 222 9 42 27.15 6.03 0.79 -0.41 0.16 -0.05 0.33
Sens.
Uncon. 222 4 28 17.05 4.82 0.83 -0.43 0.16 -0.14 0.33
Beh.
Personal 222 5 28 18.63 4.25 0.65 -0.70 0.16 0.33 0.33
Risk
N eeds 222 3 21 15.19 3.16 0.73 -0.66 0.16 0.38 0.33
Sens.
N o tS Q 222 3 13 7.34 2.19 0.37 0.11 0.16 -0.41 0.33
Charis. 222 44 161 112.49 23.08 0.94 0.52 0.16 0.12 0.33
Ldrship
Lead, by 210 1 20 13.29 4.87 0.87 0.66 0.17 -0.41 0.33
Example
Emp. 211 1 20 13.33 4.32 0.87 0.51 0.17 -0.43 0.33
Others
Dev. 211 2 20 12.63 4.59 0.89 0.17 0.17 -0.78 0.33
Others
Encour. 209 1 20 11.64 4.46 0.91 0.06 0.17 -0.77 0.33
Innov.
Eud 222 6 42 23.88 9.50 0.94 0.13 0.16 -0.86 0.33
WB
71
Skewness Kurtosis

Percep. 220 15 63 46.93 9.44 0.88 0.72 0.16 0.52 0.33
o f Eth.
Affect. 222 10 55 32.49 9.12 0.84 0.01 0.16 -0.44 0.33
Comm.
Note. The authentic leadership variable includes all 19 items. SD = Standard Deviation and SE = Standard
Error.
72
Table 11
Correlations Among Aggregate Variables Included in the Validation Study
________________ AL TL CL LBE EMP AA DEV INN EWB POE AC
Authentic (0.92)
Leadership
Transform. 0.71* (0.95)
Leadership
Charismatic 0.65* 0.84* (0.94)
Leadership
Leading by 0.68* 0.74* 0.65* (0.87)
Example
Empowering 0.65* 0.59* 0.54* 0.53* (0.87)
Others
Authentic 0.80* 0.61* 0.47* 0.65* 0.60* (0.93)
Action
________________ AL TL CL LBE EMP AA DEY INN EWB POE AC

Developing 0.70* 0.76* 0.66* 0.70* 0.68* 0.61* (0.89)
Others
Encouraging 0.63* 0.71* 0.68* 0.65* 0.58* 0.55* 0.73* (0.91)
Innovation
Eudaemonic 0.35* 0.42* 0.37* 0.39* 0.31* 0.37* 0.44* 0.39* (0.94)
Well-being
Perceptions of 0.64* 0.68* 0.56* 0.69* 0.51* 0.68* 0.54* 0.52* 0.36* (0.88)
Ethicality
Affective 0.23* 0.35* 0.22* 0.31* 0.24* 0.29* 0.36* 0.26* 0.69* 0.25* (0.84)
Commitment
Note. The authentic leadership variable includes only self-awareness, balanced processing, and relational transparency items. Authentic Action items are
included as a separate variable. * denotes correlations that are significant at the 0.05 level. Numbers in parentheses represent scale reliabilities. Abbreviated
column names correspond to the variables in the first column.

Two separate factor analyses were employed to test the latent structure of the
subordinate perceptions authentic leadership measure. The first factor analysis utilized
SPSS 15.0 software and employed principle axis factoring. Unlike the pilot study,
principle axis factoring was deemed appropriate here because the goal of the analysis was
theoretical in nature (as opposed to data-driven). The factor analysis employed with the
pilot sample used a mathematical solution to determine the optimal items to be retained in
the final measure. The factor analysis employed here sought to replicate the pre-existing
factor structure. Principle axis factoring does not analyze unique variance and was used
to uncover the latent factor structure of the authentic leadership measure. A direct
oblimin rotation was employed because the pilot study results showed the authentic
leadership dimensions to be non-orthogonal.
This factor analysis included all 19 items associated with the four hypothesized
dimensions of the subordinate perceptions authentic leadership measure. The criteria
used to interpret this factor analysis were identical to those in the pilot study. The critical
value for item factor loadings was 0.30, and crossloadings were examined to determine if
overlap existed between the dimensions. The initial analysis identified three latent
factors with eigenvalues above 1.0, accounting for 67.7% of the total variance. Self-
awareness and balanced processing items formed separate latent factors, replicating the
results of the pilot study. However, authentic action and relational transparency items
appeared to load on a single latent factor. This finding was surprising, but may have been
an artifact of using a perceptions-based measure. Authentic action and relational
transparency dimensions may be inseparable in the minds of subordinates to the extent
that they see all of their leader’s actions as relational in nature.
75
In an attempt to capture the solution identified in the pilot study, the factor
analysis was re-run using a forced four-factor solution. Results of this factor analysis
showed strong, positive factor loadings for self-awareness, balanced processing, and
authentic action items on their respective hypothesized dimensions. In addition, four out
of the five relational transparency items showed strong, negative factor loadings on the
fourth dimension. One of the relational transparency items failed to meet the loading
criteria described above, but was retained for future analyses in order to ensure
comprehensive coverage of the content domain. Factor loadings for the self-awareness
dimension ranged from 0.43 to 0.85, balanced processing item loadings ranged from 0.41
to 0.90, authentic action item loadings ranged from 0.55 to 0.95, and relational
transparency item loadings ranged from -0.17 to -0.72. Table 12 depicts the rotated
pattern matrix for the forced four-factor model. Overall, results show support for
Hypothesis 1. All four hypothesized dimensions of authentic leadership were present in
the second analysis, with relational transparency items demonstrating negative loadings
on their hypothesized dimension.
76
Table 12
Rotated Component Matrix fo r the 19-item Authentic Leadership Scale (Validation Study)
Dimension
SA Item 1 0.64 0.01 0.25 -0.01
SA Item 2 0.76 -0.05 0.08 -0.11
SA Item 3 0.85 -0.11 0.08 -0.02
SA Item 4 0.48 0.11 0.35 0.02
SA Item 5 0.43 0.12 -0.06 -0.01
BP Item 1 0.42 0.41 0.06 -0.13
BP Item 2 -0.08 0.52 -0.03 -0.10
BP Item 3 0.03 0.90 0.15 0.17
BP Item 4 0.16 0.59 -0.01 -0.08
AA Item 1 0.07 0.07 0.71 -0.07
AA Item 2 -0.04 -0.00 0.64 -0.31
AA Item 3 0.15 -0.05 0.55 -0.24
AA Item 4 0.10 0.06 0.88 0.07
AA Item 5 -0.04 0.03 0.95 -0.01
RT Item 1 0.16 0.13 0.09 - 0.65
RT Item 2 0.44 -0.01 0.02 - 0.36
77
Dimension
Item________ Self-awareness processing________ action________ transparency

RT Item 3 0.32 0.10 0.23 -0.17
RT Item 4 0.05 0.05 0.18 -0.72
RT Item 5 0.08 0.14 0.17 -0.54
Note. Principle axis factoring extraction method and direct oblimin rotation method used. SA = Self-
awareness, BP = Balanced Processing, AA = Authentic Action, RT = Relational Transparency. Item
Next, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using AMOS 7.0
software. This analysis was used to test three competing latent factor models: a one
dimensional model, a four-dimensional model, and a three-dimensional model with
authentic action and relational transparency items combined. The one-dimensional
model was tested first as a starting point for examining the latent structure of the
construct. Next, the four-dimensional model was tested in an attempt to show that the
hypothesized latent structure was a good fit to the observed data. The decision to test
another competing model was made based on the results of the factor analysis described
above. Given the apparent overlap between the authentic action and relational
transparency items, a model in which these items formed a single dimension was tested.
Table 13 reports the fit indices associated with these various models.
78
Table 13
Goodness-of-Fit Indicators fo r Hypothesized Models o f Authentic Leadership
Model x2 df Jlfaf CFI NFI TLI RMSE
One-Dimensional Model 795.79* 152 5.24 0.79 0.76 0.74 0.14
Four-Dimensional Model 424.41* 146 2.91 0.91 0.87 0.88 0.09
Three-Dimensional Model 566.06* 149 3.80 0.87 0.83 0.83 0.11
(AA and RT combined)
Note. * indicates significance at the 0.05 level. AA = Authentic Action & RT = Relational Transparency. CFI = Comparative Fit Index, NFI = Normed Fit Index,
-j
TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index, & RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error o f Approximation.
First, the one-dimensional model was tested in which all 19 authentic leadership
items formed a single latent factor. Although a one-dimensional model does not conform
to the hypothesized latent factor structure of the authentic leadership scale, it is important
to rule out alternative models as a method of providing support for the hypothesized
model. Results of a CFA testing the goodness-of-fit of the one-dimensional model
revealed a significant chi-square value ( x( ] 52) = 795.79; p < 0.05), indicating that the
one-dimensional model was not a good fit to the observed data. However, it is important
to point out that the power of a chi-square test to detect a disagreement between theory
and data is largely controlled by the size of the sample. Thus, with a large sample (as is
the case with the validation sample), small and unimportant departures from the null
hypothesis are usually detected as significant (Cochran, 1952). Additional goodness-of-
fit indices must be examined in order to assess the fit of the model to the observed data.
Results of the one-dimensional CFA showed a comparative fit index (CFI) value of 0.79
and a normed fit index (NFI) value of 0.76. Generally speaking, models with fit indices
of less than 0.90 can usually be substantially improved (Bentler & Bonett, 1980). Also,
the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) for the one-dimensional model
was 0.14. Most researchers agree that acceptable RMSEA values for good-fitting models
are between zero and 0.10. Thus, based on the fit indices reported here, the one
dimensional model is a poor fit to the observed data.
Next, a CFA was conducted to test the fit of the hypothesized four-dimensional
latent factor structure. Results of this analysis showed a significant chi-square value
(%2(146) = 424.41; p < 0.05). Examination of additional fit indices revealed mixed
results. The CFI value was 0.91, indicating a good fit based on the 0.90 criteria.
80
However, the NFI value fell below the criteria at 0.87. The RMSEA value was 0.09,
falling within the range of conventionally accepted values. Overall, results of a CFA
testing the plausibility of the hypothesized four-dimensional model do not provide strong
support for the fit of the model to the observed data. While the four-dimensional model
appears to be an improvement over the one-dimensional model, it is possible that an
alternative model will provide a better fit to the data.
Results from the factor analysis conducted with SPSS demonstrated that authentic
action and relational transparency items initially loaded on a single factor. As a result, a
model was tested in which the relational transparency and authentic action items were
combined into a single dimension. The rationale for this model stems from the fact that
participants may have had a difficult time separating a leader’s relational actions from
non-relational actions. Results of the CFA testing this model revealed a significant chi-
square value (%2(149) = 566.06; p < 0.05). Additional goodness-of-fit indices did not
show a strong fit for the model to the observed data. The CFI value was 0.87 and the NFI
value was 0.83. While both of these values indicate a better fit than the one-dimensional
model, they also indicate a poorer fit than the four-dimensional model. The RMSEA for
the model was 0.11, again indicating a poor fit to the observed data. Overall, results from
this CFA do not show strong support for the three-dimensional model in which relational
transparency and authentic action items were combined to form a single dimension.
Results from the three CFAs showed that none of the models provided an
exceptionally strong fit to the observed data across all goodness-of-fit statistics. Overall,
the four-factor model demonstrated the highest fit statistics in terms of the CFI and NFI,
as well as the lowest RMSEA value. Given the stronger theoretical underpinnings of the
81
four-factor model as described in the literature review and the sample size issues
associated with chi square significance testing, I judged the four factor model to be
superior to the one-factor and three-factor models. Therefore, the analyses that follow
will retain the four factors identified in the pilot study. Table 14 presents the
unstandardized and standardized loadings for the four-factor confirmatory model.
Reliability
The reliability of the 19-item authentic leadership scale was examined using
Cronbach’s alpha. Reliability of the full 19-item scale was 0.95. Examination of item-
total correlations revealed one self-awareness and one balanced processing item with
values lower than 0.40. However, removal of these items would only slightly increase
the reliability of the measure and they were kept to ensure full coverage of the content
domain. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.85 for the self-awareness subscale, 0.80 for the
balanced processing subscale, 0.93 for the authentic action subscale, and 0.88 for the
relational transparency subscale. Table 15 shows a comparison of the reliability statistics
for the pilot and validation studies. Table 16 shows the correlations among all four
dimensions of the authentic leadership scale based on the validation study. Correlations
among the subscales ranged from 0.53 to 0.79, with the weakest relationship being
between self-awareness and balanced processing, and the strongest relationship being
between authentic action and relational transparency. Overall, results from the validation
study provide support for Hypothesis 1. Authentic leadership can be effectively
conceptualized as being composed of four dimensions and the present scale provides a
reliable assessment of these dimensions. However, the authentic action and relational
transparency dimensions may be highly interrelated in the minds of subordinates.
82
Table 14
Unstandardized Loadings (Standard Errors) and Standardized Loadings fo r the Four-Factor Confirmatory Model
__________ SA_____________________BP_____________________AA____________________ RT
Unstand. Stand. Unstand. Stand. Unstand. Stand. Unstand. Stand.
SA 1 1.66(0.26) 0.82
SA2 1.74 (0.28) 0.84
SA 3 1.75 (0.28) 0.83
SA4 1.54(0.25) 0.80
SA 5 1.00 (-) 0.42
BP 1 1.18(0.10) 0.87
BP 2 0.60 (0.10) 0.45
BP 3 0.90 (0.09) 0.75
BP 4 1.00 (-) 0.74
AA 1 1.04(0.06) 0.82
AA2 0.98(0.06) 0.81

SA BP AA RT
Unstand. Stand. Unstand. Stand. Unstand. Stand. Unstand. Stand.

AA 3 0.97 (0.06) 0.79
AA4 1.06 (0.04) 0.94
AA 5 1.00 (-) 0.93
RT 1 1.16(0.08) 0.87
RT 2 1.01 (0.09) 0.71
RT 3 0.86 (0.08) 0.66
RT 4 1.03 (0.08) 0.84
RT 5 1.00 (-) 0.79
Note. Standard errors are listed in parentheses for unstandardized loadings. Dashes (--) indicate the standard error was not estimated. SA = Self-
awareness, BP = Balanced Processing, AA = Authentic Action, RT = Relational Transparency. Item numbers correspond to items listed in Appendix A.
Table 15
Reliability o f the Authentic Leadership Measure fo r Pilot and Validation Studies
___________________________________Pilot Study__________ Validation Study
Self-Awareness 0.82 0.85
Balanced Processing 0.81 0.80
Authentic Action 0.83 0.93
Relational Transparency 0.83 0.88
Full Scale 0.89 0.95
Note. Reliability statistics are Cronbach’s alpha values.
Table 16
Correlations Among Dimensions o f Authentic Leadership (Validation Study)
Self- Balan. Authentic Rel.
awareness processing action transparency
Self-awareness
Balan. processing 0.53* —
Authentic action 0.74* 0.54* —
Rel. transparency 0.75* 0.60* 0.79*
Note. * denotes correlations significant at the 0.05 level.
85
Relationship with Other Forms o f Leadership
Similar to the pilot study, authentic leadership was correlated with measures of
transformational and charismatic leadership to determine the degree of overlap. Table 17
depicts the correlations between the four dimensions of authentic leadership and four
dimensions of transformational leadership. Similar to the pilot study, validation study
results showed strong positive correlations between all dimensions of authentic
leadership and all dimensions of transformational leadership, indicating a significant
overlap between the constructs. The Pearson correlation coefficient for the relationship
between the aggregate authentic leadership measure and the aggregate transformational
leadership measure was 0.67, indicating that approximately 44.9% of the variance in the
authentic leadership measure can be explained by transformational leadership. The
correlation between these variables increased to 0.71 when corrected for attenuation.
Correlations among the subscales of the constructs ranged from 0.48 to 0.67, with the
weakest relationship being between self-awareness and individualized support, and the
strongest relationship being between relational transparency and the ‘core’
transformational construct.
Table 18 presents correlations between the four dimensions of authentic
leadership and six dimensions of charismatic leadership. Results showed significant
positive correlations between all dimensions of authentic leadership and all dimensions of
charismatic leadership, indicating a strong overlap between the constructs. Not
maintaining status quo showed the weakest correlations with authentic leadership
dimensions across all charismatic dimensions. However, due to the large sample size, all
86
Table 17
Correlations Among Dimensions o f Authentic Leadership and Dimensions o f
Transformational Leadership (Validation Study)
Performance Individual Intellectual Core Transform.
Expectations Support Stimulation Construct Leadership
Self- 0.57* 0.48* 0.48* 0.54* 0.56*
Awareness
Balanced 0.55* 0.58* 0.53* 0.57* 0.60*
Processing
Authentic 0.53* 0.54* 0.57* 0.58* 0.61*
Action
Relational 0.63* 0.62* 0.63* 0.67* 0.70*
Transp.
Authentic 0.60* 0.63* 0.60* 0.64* 0.67*
Leadership
Note: Authentic leadership and transformational leadership variables were created by summing all subscale
correlations were significant at the 0.05 level. The correlation between the aggregate
authentic leadership scale and the aggregate charismatic leadership scale was 0.58,
indicating that approximately 33.6% of the variance in the authentic leadership measure
was explained by charismatic leadership. This correlation increased to 0.61 when
corrected for attenuation. Correlations among the subscales of the constructs ranged
from 0.17 to 0.60, with the weakest relationship being between authentic action and not
87
maintaining the status quo, and the strongest relationship being between relational
transparency and personal risk. Additionally, aggregate measures of transformational and
charismatic leadership were found to be significantly correlated (r = 0.84, p < 0.05).
Results from the validation study show that authentic leadership does not appear
to be completely independent of transformational and charismatic leadership. Clearly,
there are overlapping aspects of these three leadership theories that emerge within a
measurement context. One consistent finding that emerged from both the pilot and
validation studies was that charismatic leadership explained a smaller percentage of
variance in authentic leadership than did transformational leadership. As a result, it
appears that authentic leadership is more closely related to transformational leadership
than charismatic leadership. Also, it is promising to note that although all three forms of
leadership were significantly correlated, the relationship between transformational and
charismatic leadership was the strongest of the three.
Test o f a Nomological Network and Mediation Model
The relationship between authentic leadership and the leader behaviors and
follower outcomes was examined next. The bivariate correlations between authentic
leadership and each of the leader behaviors and follower outcomes were all significant at
the 0.05 level. Authentic leadership was positively correlated with leading by example
behavior (r = 0.68, p < 0.05), empowering behavior (r = 0.65, p < 0.05), and authentic
action (r = 0.80, p < 0.05). These results provide support for Hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c,
respectively. In addition, authentic leadership was positively correlated with follower
eudaemonic well-being (r = 0.35, p < 0.05), follower perceptions of leader ethicality (r =
88
0.64, p < 0.05), and affective commitment (r = 0.23, p < 0.05). These results provide
support for Hypotheses 4a, 4b, and 4c, respectively.
Table 18
Correlations Among Dimensions o f Authentic Leadership and Dimensions of Charismatic
Leadership (Validation Study)
Vision Env. Uncon. Personal Needs Charis.
___________Artie. Sens._____Beh._____ Risk_____Sens. Not SQ Ldrship
Self- 0.49* 0.42* 0.39* 0.52* 0.42* 0.24* 0.51*
Aware.
Bal. 0.56* 0.52* 0.50* 0.57* 0.45* 0.28* 0.60*
Process.
Auth. 0.41* 0.39* 0.40* 0.49* 0.40* 0.17* 0.47*
Action
Rel. 0.52* 0.48* 0.46* 0.60* 0.51* 0.18* 0.57*
Transp.
Auth. 0.53* 0.48* 0.48* 0.58* 0.51* 0.21* 0.58*
Ldrship
Note: Authentic leadership and charismatic leadership variables were created by summing all subscale
It was also predicted that these leader behaviors would mediate the relationship
between authentic leadership and the follower outcomes. Specifically, leading by
example, empowering, and authentic action were predicted to mediate the relationship
89
between authentic leadership and follower outcomes of eudaemonic well-being,
perceptions of leader ethicality, and affective commitment. Mediation hypotheses were
tested using structural equation modeling (SEM) following the steps outlined by Kenny,
Kashy, and Bolger (1998). Sobel (1982) tests were used to calculate the significance of
the indirect effects.
SEM allows for a more definitive test of mediation than the traditional approach
using multiple regression (Baron & Kenny, 1986) because both direct and indirect effects
are specified in the same model. Kenny, Kashy, and Bolger (1998) outline four steps that
must be met in order to conclude that mediation has occurred. First, the independent
variable must be significantly associated with the outcome variables. This condition was
met for all mediation tests as the bivariate correlations between authentic leadership and
all three outcome variables were significant at the 0.05 level (see Hypotheses 4a, 4b, and
4c). Next, the independent variable must be significantly related to the mediator
variables and the mediator variables must be significant correlated with the outcome
variables (steps two and three respectively). These relationships can be determined by
examining the standardized path coefficients. The fourth and final step involves the
calculation of the indirect relationship of the independent variable with the outcome
variables through the mediators; leading by example, empowering, and authentic action.
The significance of each indirect relationship through the mediator variables was tested
using the Sobel (1982) method. A Sobel test is a z-test of the hypothesis that the
mediated effect equals zero in the population. In order for mediation to occur, the Sobel
test must be significant at the 0.05 level. A significant value from the Sobel test indicates
that the association of the independent and dependent variables has been significantly
90
reduced by the inclusion of the mediating variable. For the purposes of this study, partial
and full mediation models were tested with SEM. The path coefficients and standard
errors from the fully mediated model were then used to perform the Sobel tests.
For the purposes of testing for mediation with SEM, authentic leadership was
conceptualized as a latent variable with three indicators: self-awareness, balanced
processing, and relational transparency.1 Leading by example, empowering, and
authentic action were the mediators, and eudaemonic well-being, perceptions of leader
ethicality, and affective commitment were the outcome or dependent variables.
First, SEM was used to test a partially mediated model. All direct effects were
specified in the partially mediated model, including direct paths between authentic
leadership and each of the outcome variables. In this model, authentic leadership is
assumed to have a direct effect on each of the outcome variables as well as an indirect
effect through the use of the leader behaviors (i.e., the mediators). Table 19 depicts the
fit statistics associated with the partially mediated model and Table 20 depicts the
relevant standardized path coefficients. Overall, results did not show support for a strong
fit to the observed data (^(18) = 160.20; p < 0.05, CFI = 0.88, NFI = 0.86, and RMSEA
= 0.19). Tests of the direct paths revealed that the independent variable was significantly
related to all three mediator variables, consistent with Kenny, Kashy, and Bolger’s (1998)
step two. However, none of the direct relationships between authentic leadership and the
outcome variables were significant at the 0.05 level. Due to the lack of ideal fit indices
1 In order to correctly perform the mediation analyses, the authentic action items were first removed from
the authentic leadership measure. While authentic action is hypothesized to be one o f the four dimensions
o f authentic leadership, it is not correct to perform mediation analyses in which the independent and
mediator variables contain a subset o f identical items (as would be the case if the authentic action items
mediate the relationship between authentic leadership and follower outcomes). To this end, the authentic
action items were removed from the authentic leadership scale and used as behavioral indicators o f the
authentic leadership construct.
91
and the non-significant path coefficients between the independent variable and outcome
variables, a full mediation model was considered.
SEM was next used to test a fully mediated model in which the direct paths
between the authentic leadership construct and follower outcome variables were
removed. Thus, in this model, the effect of authentic leadership on the follower
outcomes was predicted to be through the leader behaviors. Table 19 shows fit indices
associated with the fully mediated model and Table 21 shows relevant standardized path
coefficients. The results of this analysis did not show strong support for the fully
mediated model (^(21) = 163.14;p < 0.05, CFI = 0.88, NFI = 0.86, RMSEA = 0.18).
Overall, the fully mediated model yielded a slightly better fit than the partially mediated
model (see the comparison of fit statistics in Table 19). Tests of the direct paths again
revealed authentic leadership to be significantly correlated with all three mediator
variables. Four relationships between the mediator and outcome variables were
significant. Leading by example emerged as a significant predictor of all three outcome
variables, and authentic action was found to be a significant predictor of perceptions of
leader ethicality, consistent with Kenny, Kashy, and Bolger’s (1998) step three.
Empowering behavior did not significantly predict any of the outcome variables.
Table 19
Goodness-of-Fit Indicators fo r the Full and Partial Mediation Models
Model_____________ x2 df gVdf CFI NFI TLI RMSEA
Partial Mediation 160.20* 18 8.90 0.88 0.86 0.69 0.19
Full Mediation 163.14* 21 7.77 0.88 0.86 0.73 0.18
Note. * indicates significance at the 0.05 level. CFI = Comparative Fit Index, NFI = Normed Fit Index,
TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index, & RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error o f Approximation.
92
Table 20
Regression Weights fo r Variables in the Partial Mediation Model
Relationship Estimate SE CR
Authentic leadership Leading by example 0.75* 0.06 11.75
Authentic leadership -> Empowering 0.62* 0.06 10.64
Authentic leadership -> Authentic action 1.08* 0.07 15.32
Authentic leadership Eudaemonic well-being 0.15 0.43 0.36
Authentic leadership -> Perceptions of ethicality 0.41 0.31 1.32
Authentic leadership -> Affective commitment 0.50 0.43 1.16
Leading by example -> Eudaemonic well-being 0.51* 0.19 2.66
Leading by example -> Perceptions of ethicality 0.70* 0.14 5.06
Leading by example Affective commitment 0.49* 0.19 2.56
Empowering Eudaemonic well-being 0.25 0.20 1.25
Empowering -> Perceptions of ethicality 0.05 0.14 0.32
Empowering -> Affective commitment 0.22 0.20 1.11
Authentic action -> Eudaemonic well-being 0.33 0.25 1.30
Authentic action -> Perceptions of ethicality 0.40* 0.19 2.14
Authentic action -> Affective commitment 0.44 0.26 1.74
Note. Estimate value represents the regression weight. SE represents the standard error. CR represents the
critical ratio. * indicates significance at the 0.05 level.
93
Table 21
Regression Weights fo r Variables in the Full Mediation Model
Relationship Estimate SE CR
Authentic leadership -> Leading by example 0.74* 0.06 11.84
Authentic leadership -> Empowering 0.61* 0.06 10.71
Authentic leadership -> Authentic action 1.07* 0.07 15.54
Leading by example Eudaemonic well-being 0.48* 0.16 2.96
Leading by example -> Perceptions of ethicality 0.80* 0.12 6.84
Leading by example -> Affective commitment 0.38* 0.16 2.35
Empowering Eudaemonic well-being 0.21 0.17 1.24
Empowering -> Perceptions of ethicality 0.13 0.13 1.05
Empowering Affective commitment 0.12 0.17 0.67
Authentic action -> Eudaemonic well-being 0.25 0.14 1.76
Authentic action -> Perceptions of ethicality 0.61* 0.10 5.82
Authentic action -> Affective commitment 0.19 0.14 1.35
Note. Estimate value represents the regression weight. SE represents the standard error. CR represents the
critical ratio. * indicates significance at the 0.05 level.
As a final step in testing for mediation, Sobel tests were performed to calculate
the significance of the indirect relationships based on the path coefficients and standard
errors from fully mediated SEM analysis. Sobel tests were limited to the four significant
relationships between mediator and outcome variables found above, as these were the
only relationships to meet the criteria of Kenny, Kashy, and Bolger’s (1998) third step.
Leading by example was found to mediate the relationship between authentic leadership
94
and eudaemonic well-being (z = 2.92, p < 0.05), perceptions of leader ethicality (z = 5.86,
p < 0.05), and affective commitment (z = 2.33,p < 0.05). These findings show support
for Hypotheses 6a through 6c. Also, authentic action was found to mediate the
relationship between authentic leadership and perceptions of leader ethicality (z - 5.67,/?
< 0.05). This finding shows support for Hypothesis 6h. Leading by example appears to
fully mediate the relationship between authentic leadership and the follower outcomes.
Aside from the relationship between authentic action and perceptions of leader ethicality,
the other two leader behaviors do not mediate the relationship between authentic
leadership and the outcomes when controlling for leading by example. Thus, leading by
example appears to be the primary mediator of the association between authentic
leadership and follower outcomes.
Relative Effects o f Authentic Leadership versus Transformational and Charismatic
Leadership
The remaining eight hypotheses predict differences in how authentic,
transformational, and charismatic leadership will relate to certain leader behavior and
follower outcome variables. The remaining eight hypotheses predict differences in how
authentic, transformational, and charismatic leadership will relate to certain leader
behavior and follower outcome variables. Hypotheses 3a through 3d state that
transformational and charismatic leadership will predict developing behavior and
behavior that encourages innovative thinking to a greater extent than will authentic
leadership. Hypotheses 5a through 5d predict that authentic leadership’will predict
eudaemonic well-being and perceptions of leader ethicality to a greater extent than will
transformational and charismatic leadership. These hypotheses were first tested by
95
comparing the relationships between the three aggregate leadership variables and the
hypothesized behaviors and outcomes. The goal of this analysis was to show that the
aggregate leadership variables differentially predicted the behaviors and outcomes by
testing for significant differences between the relationships.
Table 22 shows the correlations between the aggregate leadership variables and
the leader behaviors and follower outcomes. All three forms of leadership were shown to
be significantly correlated with each of the leader behavior and follower outcome
variables. Correlations among the forms of leadership and developing behavior ranged
from 0.66 to 0.76, from 0.63 to 0.71 for encouraging innovative thinking, from 0.35 to
0.42 for eudaemonic well-being, and from 0.56 to 0.68 for perceptions of leader
ethicality. Given the large sample size of the validation study (over 200 participants), it
was not surprising to find all variables significantly correlated at the 0.05 level.
However, tests for significant differences among the correlations did not support any of
the hypotheses. Only one pair of aggregate leadership variables was shown to be
differentially correlated with the behavior or outcome variables. The correlation between
transformational leadership and follower perceptions of leader ethicality was significantly
larger than the correlation between charismatic leadership and perceptions of leader
ethicality (z = 2.04,/? < 0.05). None of the correlations between authentic leadership and
the hypothesized behavior or outcome variables were significantly different from that of
the other two forms of leadership. Thus, no support was found for Hypotheses 3a
through 3d or 5a through 5d when examining aggregate measures.
96
Table 22
Correlations o f Aggregate Authentic, Transformational, and Charismatic Leadership
Variables with Leader Behavior and Follower Outcome Variables
Authentic Transformational Charismatic
_______________________ Leadership________ Leadership________ Leadership
Developing 0.70* 0.76* 0.66*
Behaviors
Encouraging 0.63* 0.71* 0.68*
Innovative Thinking
Eudaemonic Well- 0.35* 0.42* 0.37*
Being
Perceptions of 0.64* 0. 68 * 0. 56*
Leader Ethicality
Note. * denotes correlations significant at the 0.05 level. In each row, bolded correlation coefficients are
significantly different from one another.
Since analyses related to the aggregate leadership variables did not show support
for these hypotheses, potential differences related to the dimensions of leadership were
examined next. To this end, eight separate hierarchical regression analyses were
conducted utilizing the dimensions of authentic, transformational, and charismatic
leadership. The first two regression analyses tested whether the dimensions of authentic
leadership explained a significant amount of incremental variance in the leader behaviors
over the dimensions of transformational leadership. The same two analyses were then
repeated for the dimensions of charismatic leadership. The goal of these analyses was to
97
show that the effect of authentic leadership on the leader behaviors would be non
significant when controlling for either transformational or charismatic leadership.
Results from both the pilot and validation studies have already shown that all three forms
of leadership significantly overlap with one another. However, if authentic leadership
does not explain significant incremental variance, it can be concluded that its relationship
with the leader behaviors is only due to its similarities with transformational and
charismatic leadership. In this case, the unique aspects of authentic leadership would not
predict the leader behaviors.
The next two regression equations were used to test whether the dimensions of
transformational leadership explained a significant amount of incremental variance in the
follower outcomes over the dimensions of authentic leadership. These two analyses were
again repeated for charismatic leadership. Similar to the rationale discussed above, the
goal of these analyses was to show that the effect of transformational and charismatic
leadership on the follower outcomes of eudaemonic well-being and perceptions of leader
ethicality was due only to similarities with authentic leadership. If this is true, the unique
aspects of transformational and charismatic leadership would not predict these follower
outcomes.
High correlations and low tolerance values among the predictor variables
indicated the existence of multicollinearity. Multicollinearity is the result of statistical
redundancy among the predictor variables and can result in over-fitting a regression
model. One approach to lessening the impact of multicollinearity on a multiple
regression analysis is to center the problematic variables. However, centering has no
effect on linear regression coefficients unless at least one interaction term is included in
98
the equation (Cohen, Cohen, West & Aiken, 2003). Since no interaction terms were
included in the hierarchical regression analyses, centering was not used. A second
approach to lessening the impact of multicollinearity is to remove or combine the
problematic predictor variables (Cohen, Cohen, West & Aiken, 2003). However, given
the strong theoretical background for the dimensions of authentic, transformational, and
charismatic leadership, this approach was not feasible. In addition, correlations among
the items for each form of leadership are likely to be driven by the latent leadership
constructs underlying the dimensions. Thus, it is not surprising to see high correlations
among the dimensions as these relationships reflect the multidimensional nature of the
leadership constructs. As a result, the hierarchical regression analyses were conducted
with the “raw” predictor variables.
Table 23 depicts the results of the first hierarchical regression equation. In the
first step of the equation, leader developing behavior was regressed on the four
dimensions of transformational leadership. The overall model significantly predicted
developing behavior (F = 67.09,/? < 0.05), explaining approximately 57.4% of the
variance. The “core” transformational dimension was the only significant predictor of
developing behavior in the model. In the second step of the regression equation, the
authentic leadership dimensions were added to the model. The expanded model
explained an additional 5.5% of the variance in developing behavior, and this change was
significant (F = 7.22,/? < 0.05). However, while the four authentic leadership scales
explained a significant amount of additional variance as a group, none of the individual
dimensions significantly predicted developing behavior at the 0.05 level of significance.
Although the core dimension of transformational leadership was the strongest predictor
99
of leader developing behavior, the set of authentic leadership behaviors accounted for a
significant amount of incremental variance over and above the transformational variables.
Thus, no support was found for Hypothesis 3a.
Table 24 shows the results of the second regression equation. In the first step of
the equation, encouraging innovative thinking was regressed on the dimensions of
transformational leadership. The overall model was a significant predictor of the
dependent variable (F = 52.52, p < 0.05), explaining approximately 51.6% of the
variance. Both individual support and the “core” transformational dimension were
significant predictors of encouraging innovative thinking. The addition of authentic
leadership dimensions significantly increased the amount of variance explained by 3.8%
(F = 4.08, p < 0.05). None of the authentic leadership dimensions were significant
predictors of encouraging innovative thinking when controlling for the dimensions of
transformational leadership. Again, no support was found for Hypothesis 3b as the group
of authentic leadership dimensions predicted significant incremental variance in
encouraging innovative thinking beyond what was expected due to overlap with
transformational leadership.
Table 25 depicts the results of the third regression equation. In the first step of
this equation, developing behavior was regressed on the six dimensions of charismatic
leadership. The overall model was a significant predictor of the dependent variable (F =
33.40,/? < 0.05), explaining 48.9% of the variance in developing behavior. Of the six
dimensions of charismatic leadership, only vision articulation and personal risk were
significant predictors of developing behavior. The addition of authentic leadership
dimensions to the model significantly increased the amount of variance explained by
100
approximately 10.8% (F = 13.45,/? < 0.05). Both the authentic action and relational
transparency dimensions of authentic leadership were significant predictors of developing
behavior. Thus, contrary to Hypothesis 3c, authentic leadership predicted leader
developing behavior beyond what was accounted for by charismatic leadership.
Results of the final regression equation related to leader behavior can be found in
Table 26. In this equation, encouraging innovative thinking was first regressed on the
dimensions of charismatic leadership. The overall model explained approximately 48.0%
of the variance in encouraging innovative thinking (F = 30.04,/? < 0.05). Both vision
articulation and personal risk were significant predictors in the initial model. The
addition of authentic leadership dimensions significantly increased the amount of
variance explained by approximately 6.9% (F = 7.36, p < 0.05). Of the four dimensions
of authentic leadership, authentic action was found to significantly predict the dependent
variable. As a result, authentic leadership demonstrated unique prediction of encouraging
innovative behavior, independent of the effect of charismatic leadership.
101
Table 23
Hierarchical Regression Examining the Relationship o f Authentic and Transformational
Leadership Dimensions to Developing Behavior
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Std.
b Error P t R2 R2Change F Change
Model 1 0.57 — 67.09*
Constant -2.95 1.03 — -2.88*
Perf. Expect. 0.15 0.11 0.12 1.42
Ind. Support 0.07 0.10 0.07 0.73
Intell. Stim. 0.16 0.09 0.15 1.65
Core Trans. 0.15 0.04 0.47 4.33*
Model 2 0.63 0.06 7.22*
Constant -4.99 1.10 — -4.53*
Perf. Expect. 0.04 0.10 0.03 0.41
Ind. Support 0.03 0.09 0.03 0.30
Intell. Stim. 0.10 0.09 0.09 1.07
Core Trans. 0.13 0.03 0.38 3.67*
Self-aware. 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.63
Bal. Process. 0.10 0.05 0.11 1.87
Auth. Action 0.09 0.06 0.12 1.54
Rel. Transp. 0.09 0.06 0.12 1.45
Note. * indicates significance at the 0.05 level.
102
Table 24
Leadership Dimensions to Encouraging Innovating Thinking
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Std.
b Error ft______ t _____ R2 R2 Change F Change
Model 1 0.52 - 52.52*
Constant -2.57 1.06 — -2.43*
Perf. Expect. 0.09 0.11 0.07 0.80
Ind. Support 0.28 0.10 0.28 2.80*
Intell. Stim. 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.39
Core Trans. 0.12 0.04 0.37 3.21*
Model 2 0.55 0.04 4.08*
Constant -4.67 1.18 — -3.97*
Perf. Expect. 0.01 0.11 0.01 0.07
Ind. Support 0.24 0.10 0.25 2.46*
Intell. Stim. 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.03
Core Trans. 0.10 0.04 0.32 2.80*
Self-aware. 0.08 0.06 0.10 1.23
Bal. Process. 0.10 0.06 0.11 1.72
Auth. Action 0.10 0.06 0.14 1.62
Rel. Transp. -0.03 0.06 -0.04 -0.46
103
Table 25
Hierarchical Regression Examining the Relationship o f Authentic and Charismatic
Leadership Dimensions to Developing Behavior
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Std.
h Error A R2 R2 Change F Change
Model 1 0.49 33.40*
Constant -1.98 1.28 — -1.54
Vision Artie. 0.14 0.06 0.21 2.32*
Env. Sens. -0.01 0.08 -0.01 -0.09
Uncon. Beh. 0.13 0.08 0.14 1.57
Pers. Risk 0.38 0.10 0.36 3.93*
Needs Sens. 0.22 0.13 0.15 1.78
NotSQ -0.23 0.13 -0.11 -1.81
odel 2 0.61 0.11 13.45s1
Constant -5.52 1.30 — -4.25*
Vision Artie. 0.07 0.06 0.11 1.31
Env. Sens. -0.01 0.07 -0.01 -0.08
Uncon. Beh. 0.10 0.07 0.11 1.35
Pers. Risk 0.18 0.09 0.17 2.00*
Needs Sens. 0.22 0.11 0.15 1.99*
NotSQ -0.15 0.11 -0.07 -1.30
Self-aware. -0.01 0.06 -0.01 -0.01
104
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Std.
b Error /?______ t_____ R2 R2 Change F Change

Bal. Process. 0.08 0.06 0.09 1.47
Auth. Action 0.16 0.06 0.21 2.62*
Rel. Trans. 0.13 0.06 0.18 2.13*
105
Table 26
Leadership Dimensions to Encouraging Innovative Thinking
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Std.
b Error P R2 R2 Change F Change
Model 1 0.48 30.04*
Constant -3.09 1.28 — -2.42*
Vision Artie. 0.15 0.06 0.22 2.43*
Env. Sens. 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.60
Uncon. Beh. 0.10 0.08 0.11 1.16
Pers. Risk 0.29 0.10 0.28 2.97*
Needs Sens. 0.16 0.13 0.11 1.26
NotSQ 0.02 0.12 0.01 0.17
odel 2 0.55 0.07 7.36*
Constant -6.28 1.36 — -4.61*
Vision Artie. 0.11 0.06 0.16 1.82
Env. Sens. 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.64
Uncon. Beh. 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.86
Pers. Risk 0.15 0.10 0.15 1.58
Needs Sens. 0.17 0.12 0.12 1.42
NotSQ 0.07 0.12 0.03 0.57
Self-aware. 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.02
106
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Std.
b Error ______ t _____ R2 R2 Change F Change

Bal. Process. 0.07 0.06 0.08 1.18
Auth. Action 0.19 0.06 0.26 3.03*
Rel. Trans. 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.20
The remaining hierarchical regression analyses were conducted in relation to
follower outcomes. Table 27 presents results of a regression analysis in which
eudaemonic well-being was first regressed on the four dimensions of authentic
leadership. The overall model was statistically significant (F = 8.69,/? < 0.05), and
explained approximately 14.3% of the variance in eudaemonic well-being. Authentic
action was the only significant predictor of the dependent variable. The inclusion of
transformational leadership dimensions significantly increased the amount of variance
explained by 7.0% (F - 4.49,/? < 0.05), and intellectual stimulation was shown to be a
significant predictor of eudaemonic well-being. Contrary to Hypothesis 5a, it appears
that transformational leadership predicts additional variance in eudemonic well-being
which cannot be explained by similarities with authentic leadership.
Next, follower perceptions of leader ethicality were regressed on the dimensions
of authentic and transformational leadership. Results can be found in Table 28. The
model including only the dimensions of authentic leadership was a significant predictor
of the dependent variable (F = 61.02,/? < 0.05), explaining approximately 54.2% of the
variance in perceptions of leader ethicality. All four dimensions of authentic leadership
107
were significant predictors of the follower outcome. With the inclusion of
transformational leadership dimensions, the amount of variance explained by the model
significantly increased by 7.0% (F = 9.02, p < 0.05). However, none of the dimensions
of transformational leadership significantly predicted perceptions of leader ethicality
when controlling for the dimensions of authentic leadership. The results of this analysis
provide evidence to refute Hypothesis 5b, as the group of transformational leadership
scales predicted a significant amount of incremental variance in perceptions of leader
ethicality that could not be accounted for by overlap with authentic leadership.
Table 29 shows the results of the next regression equation. In this equation,
eudaemonic well-being was first regressed on the dimensions of authentic leadership. As
previously noted, this model significantly predicted the dependent variable. The addition
of charismatic leadership dimensions significantly increased the amount of variance
explained by approximately 10.7% (F = 4.79, p < 0.05). Both environmental sensitivity
and unconventional behavior were significant predictors of eudaemonic well-being.
Thus, contrary to Hypothesis 5c, it appears that charismatic leadership predicts follower
eudaemonic well-being even when controlling for the dimensions of authentic leadership.
Results of the final regression equation related to follower outcomes can be found
in Table 30. Perceptions of leader ethicality were first regressed on the dimensions of
authentic leadership. As previously discussed, this model significantly predicted the
dependent variable. The addition of charismatic leadership dimensions to the model
significantly increased the amount of variance explained by 5.6% (F = 4.61,/? < 0.05).
However, none of the dimensions of charismatic leadership were found to significantly
predict perceptions of leader ethicality. Contrary to Hypothesis 5d, the set of charismatic
108
leadership variables significantly predicted perceptions of leader ethicality over and
above authentic leadership, although none of the individual scales independently
predicted the outcome variable.
Overall, the prediction of differential relationships between the three forms of
leadership and leader behavior and follower outcome variables was not fully supported.
With regard to leader behaviors, the individual dimensions of authentic leadership did not
predict developing behavior or behavior that encourages innovative thinking beyond what
would be expected due to similarities with transformational leadership. However, the
authentic leadership dimensions did explain incremental variance in these outcomes that
could not be accounted for by the dimensions of charismatic leadership. With regard to
follower outcomes, both transformational and charismatic leadership significantly
predicted eudaemonic well-being when controlling for the dimensions of authentic
leadership. Thus, authentic leadership’s impact on eudaemonic well-being is not unique
in that both transformational and charismatic leadership also predict this outcome
variable. However, none of the individual dimensions of transformational or charismatic
leadership were significant predictors of perceptions of leader ethicality taking into
account overlap with authentic leadership. Thus, it can be concluded that authentic
leadership differs from the other forms of leadership because they do not have a unique
effect on perceptions of leader ethicality. This finding supports the notion that the
inherent moral component of authentic leadership is a primary point of differentiation
from transformational and charismatic leadership.
109
Table 27
Leadership Dimensions to Eudaemonic Well-Being
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Std.
b Error fi t R2 R2 Change F Change
Model 1 0.14 — 8.69*
Constant 6.64 3.04 — 2.18*
Self-aware. 0.16 0.17 0.10 0.94
Bal. Process. 0.14 0.15 0.08 0.95
Auth. Action 0.42 0.18 0.26 2.29*
Rel. Transp. -0.01 0.17 -0.01 -0.05
Model 2 0.21 0.07 4.49*
Constant 1.35 3.25 — 0.42
Self-aware. 0.19 0.17 0.12 1.15
Bal. Process. <0.01 0.16 <0.01 0.01
Auth. Action 0.33 0.18 0.20 1.83
Rel. Transp. -0.24 0.18 -0.17 -1.39
Perf. Expect. -0.13 0.31 -0.05 -0.43
Ind. Support -0.01 0.28 -0.01 -0.04
Intell. Stim. 0.56 0.27 0.26 2.09*
Core Trans. 0.11 0.10 0.16 1.04
110
Table 28
Leadership Dimensions to Perceptions o f Leader Ethicality
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Std.
b Error fi t R2 R2 Change F Change
Model 1 0.54 — 61.02*
Constant 17.22 2.21 — 7.80*
Self-aware. 0.39 0.12 0.24 3.16*
Bal. Process. 0.30 0.11 0.16 2.69*
Auth. Action 0.78 0.13 0.49 5.93*
Rel. Transp. 0.52 0.12 0.37 4.21*
Model 2 0.61 0.07 9.02*
Constant 12.37 2.27 — 5.46*
Self-aware. 0.40 0.12 0.25 3.39*
Bal. Process. 0.10 0.11 0.06 0.95
Auth. Action 0.73 0.13 0.46 5.88*
Rel. Transp. 0.27 0.12 0.19 2.17*
Perf. Expect. 0.24 0.22 0.09 1.10
Ind. Support 0.28 0.19 0.13 1.43
Intell. Stim. 0.05 0.19 0.02 0.28
Core Trans. 0.11 0.07 0.17 1.58
Ill
Table 29
Leadership Dimensions to Eudaemonic Well-Being
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Std.
_________________ b Error_____ ft______ t_____ R2 R2 Change F Change
Model 1 0.14 - 8.69*
Constant 6.64 3.04 — 2.18*
Self-aware. 0.16 0.17 0.10 0.94
Bal. Process. 0.14 0.15 0.08 0.95
Auth. Action 0.42 0.18 0.26 2.29*
Rel. Transp. -0.01 0.17 -0.01 -0.05
odel 2 0.25 0.11 4.79*
Constant 4.10 3.66 — 1.12
Self-aware. 0.13 0.17 0.08 0.80
Bal. Process. -0.05 0.16 -0.03 -0.31
Auth. Action 0.43 0.18 0.27 2.47*
Rel. Transp. -0.18 0.17 -0.13 -1.07
Vision Artie. 0.26 0.16 0.19 1.67
Env. Sens. -0.48 0.21 -0.31 -2.30*
Uncon. Beh. 0.84 0.21 0.43 4.00*
Pers. Risk -0.04 0.26 -0.02 -0.16
Needs Sens. 0.38 0.32 0.12 1.17
112
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Std.
______________ b Error_____/?______ t_____ R2 R2 Change F Change

NotSQ -0.39 0.32 -0.09 -1.22
113
Table 30
Leadership Dimensions to Perceptions o f Leader Ethicality
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Std.
b Error JL R2 R2 Change F Change
Model 1 0.54 6 . 02 *
Constant 17.22 2.21 — 7.80*
Self-aware. 0.39 0.12 0.24 3.16*
Bal. Process. 0.30 0.11 0.16 2.69*
Auth. Action 0.78 0.13 0.49 5.93*
Rel. Transp. 0.52 0.12 0.37 4.21*
odel 2 0.60 0.06 4.61s
Constant 10.68 2.67 — 4.01*
Self-aware. 0.47 0.12 0.30 3.96*
Bal. Process. 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.97
Auth. Action 0.86 0.13 0.54 6.79*
Rel. Transp. 0.34 0.12 0.24 2.79*
Vision Artie. 0.16 0.11 0.11 1.35
Env. Sens. 0.26 0.15 0.17 1.70
Uncon. Beh. -0.25 0.15 -0.13 -1.60
Pers. Risk 0.24 0.19 0.11 1.26
Needs Sens. 0.22 0.23 0.07 0.95
114
Unstandardized
Coefficient?
Std.
_______________b____ Error /?______ t_____ Rz Rz Change F Change

NotSQ -0.06 0.23 -0.01 -0.25
115
Chapter 5: General Discussion
116
The goals of the current research were to develop a reliable and valid measure of
authentic leadership and to examine the relationship between authentic leadership and
relevant variables in the construct’s nomological network. The results of a pilot study
using undergraduate students guided the construction of a 19-item scale, which measured
four dimensions of authentic leadership: self-awareness, balanced processing of self
relevant information, authentic action, and relational transparency. These dimensions are
consistent with recent conceptualizations of the authentic leadership construct (Gardner
& Avolio, 2005; Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005). The four-dimensional structure of
the measure was largely confirmed by the results of the validation study using federal
government employees, although there was evidence for alternative factor solutions.
Specifically, results of the validation study suggested a possible three-dimensional factor
structure consisting of self-awareness, balanced processing of self-relevant information,
and a combination of authentic action and relational transparency. Although this
structure provided a good fit to the data, it was not superior to the four factor solution,
and thus the latter was retained because it was more consistent with the theoretical
framework for this study.
Behavioral Correlates and Outcomes o f Authentic Leadership
Results from the validation study provide support for the relationship between
authentic leadership and leader behavior. Leaders seen as acting authentically were rated
high on such behaviors as leading by example, empowering subordinates, and authentic
action. Results also provide support for the relationship between authentic leadership and
follower outcomes of eudaemonic well-being, perceptions of leader ethicality, and
affective commitment. High levels of perceived authenticity were associated with high
117
levels of well-being and affective commitment. These relationships may exist due to the
ability of authentic leaders to model self-awareness and ethical practices in the
workplace. By providing behavioral examples for their subordinates to follow, authentic
leaders enhance the ability of subordinates to act in accordance with their true selves. As
a result, subordinates will come to a better understanding of who they are and how that
information plays out in their actions. This increased understanding will increase
eudaemonic well-being by allowing subordinates the opportunity to feel a “special fit”
between work activities and their core selves.
Tests for the mediating role of leader behaviors (authentic action, leading by
example, and empowerment) in the relationship between authentic leadership and
follower outcomes revealed mixed results. Leading by example consistently emerged as
the strongest predictor of follower outcomes in tests of mediation. Leading by example
mediated the relationship between authentic leadership and all three follower outcomes
when controlling for the other two mediator variables. In addition, authentic action was
also shown to mediate the relationship between authentic leadership and follower
perceptions of leader ethicality. Leader empowering was not found to mediate any
relationships. Taken together, these results suggest that the relationship between
authentic leadership and follower outcomes of eudaemonic well-being, perceptions of
leader ethicality, and affective commitment may be due to the use of leading by example
behavior and authentic action. This finding confirms one of the basic assumptions of
authentic leadership theory by demonstrating that the modeling of authentic actions can
result in positive follower outcomes. This finding also shows support for the notion that
118
leading by example behavior is the primary mechanism by which authentic leaders
influence their followers.
Divergent Validity Evidence
Unfortunately, the validation study failed to provide conclusive evidence to
support the conceptual independence of authentic leadership from transformational and
charismatic leadership. All three aggregate leadership variables, as well as the relevant
sub-dimensions of each construct, were found to be significantly correlated with one
another at the 0.05 level of significance. However, correlations between the three forms
of leadership and leader behaviors and follower outcomes showed some evidence of
independence. The dimensions of authentic leadership did not predict developing
behavior or behavior that encourages innovative thinking when controlling for the
dimensions of transformational leadership. This indicates that the significant correlations
between authentic leadership and these leader behaviors can be accounted for by
similarities with transformational leadership. In other words, the unique aspects of
authentic leadership (i.e., those that distinguish it from transformational leadership) did
not predict behaviors that have been associated with transformational leaders. Also,
authentic leadership was directly linked to perceptions of leader ethicality.
Transformational and charismatic leadership dimensions were not significantly related to
perceptions of leader ethicality when the effects of authentic leadership were controlled.
Thus, any association that charismatic and transformational leadership have with
perceptions of leader ethicality is due to their overlap with authentic leadership. The
unique aspects of transformational and charismatic leadership do not predict how
followers perceive their leader’s morality. This finding is not surprising given that
119
transformational and charismatic leadership theories do not focus on the moral
component of leadership. Thus, it appears that the primary discriminating factor between
these forms of leadership is authentic leadership’s focus on a leader’s morality.
Taken as a whole, the results of the current research show support for the
reliability and factor structure of a four-dimensional, subordinate perception authentic
leadership scale. The utility of this measure was demonstrated by significant correlations
with important leader behaviors and follower outcomes. In addition, the current study
began the process of distinguishing authentic leadership theory from other leadership
theories. While complete conceptual independence was not found, evidence from the
validation study suggests that the moral component of authentic leadership theory may be
its strongest distinguishing factor. These results represent an important step forward in
research on authentic leadership by concisely defining the authentic leadership construct
and by providing a standardized instrument for future studies to assess authentic
leadership. Future research should seek to replicate the findings of the current study in
other settings and with other populations in order to validate the authentic leadership
scale.
Assumptions and Limitations
Interpreting the results of the current study is contingent upon two assumptions
related to authentic leadership theory. First, authentic leadership theory is based on a
positive psychology perspective that assumes all leaders (and human beings in general)
are inherently ethical. Authentic leadership theory contends that by behaving
authentically, a leader is also behaving ethically. By encouraging leaders to behave
authentically in the workplace, we are implicitly stating that we believe their core values
120
and beliefs to be inherently moral. If an individual were to be inherently unethical by
nature, their authentic actions could include lying, cheating or stealing to increase
personal gain. Obviously, this is not what authentic leadership scholars wish to promote.
One may argue that history books are full of individuals who appear to be unethical by
their nature. However, a distinction must be drawn between individuals who act
unethically as a result of environmental or situational influences versus individuals who
are truly unethical by their nature.
For example, there is little doubt that Adolf Hitler is viewed as one of the most
evil and unethical people to ever walk the earth. However, can it really be said with
confidence that he was behaving authentically (e.g., in line with his core self) when he
committed heinous crimes against humanity? Authentic leadership theory would argue
that his unethical actions were the result of anti-Semite influences and pressures of those
around him rather than the result of his inherent immoral nature. Perhaps, over time, his
values and beliefs deviated as he lost touch with his true self. If this were the case, it
could be argued that Hitler was behaving inauthentically when he committed his heinous
crimes. Although it seems unlikely that we will ever be able to settle the nature versus
nurture debate or determine the root cause of an individual’s behavior, the possibility that
people are bom with an inherent moral nature cannot be disproven. This critical
assumption must be made in order to accurately understand authentic leadership theory.
The second assumption of authentic leadership theory relates to the sequential
order of the first two dimensions, self-awareness and balanced processing of self-relevant
information. According to Kemis (2003) and Gardner and Avolio (2005), the self-
awareness dimension of authentic leadership involves both the awareness and acceptance
121
of self-relevant information, whereas the balanced processing dimension includes the
evaluation of information gained from being self aware. These dimension definitions
assume that acceptance of self-relevant information precedes evaluation. This
assumption is grounded in cognitive research on memory. Memory research has shown
that immediately upon the perception and recognition of salient information, human
beings will quickly store the salient information in their short-term memory (Anderson,
1976). This quick storage of salient information demonstrates an acceptance of the
information as relevant to the self on some superficial level. Although this information
has not yet been incorporated into a person’s cognitions, it has passed a preliminary
mechanism of acceptance. Once the information has been stored in short-term memory,
it can then be retrieved and evaluated further. If the information is not important to the
individual’s sense of self, it will be lost from short-term memory. However if the
information is viewed as pertinent to the self, it will be transferred to long-term memory
through techniques such as repetition (Baddeley, 1986).
Authentic leadership theory argues the same process for interpreting leader
acceptance and evaluation of self-relevant information. When leaders are self-aware,
they are capable of recognizing various pieces of information about the self as salient.
This information is quickly accepted by the individual and stored in their short-term
memory for further evaluation (Baddeley, 1986). This process corresponds to the self-
awareness dimension of authentic leadership. Then, a few seconds or minutes later, the
leader will begin to process the information in order to determine if it is worthy of being
stored in long-term memory. This evaluation of self-relevant information represents the
balanced processing dimension of authentic leadership. Thus, it can be seen that the
122
temporal sequence of information acceptance followed by evaluation is consistent with a
cognitive psychology perspective.
In addition to these assumptions, it is also important to note the potential
limitations of the current research. The first limitation is the use of a subordinate
perception-based scale to assess authentic leadership. Given the sensitive nature of the
authentic leadership items and the difficulty in attaining a sample from a population of
organizational leaders, the authentic leadership items were drafted with the intention of
being administered to a sample of subordinates. It was felt that these subordinates
(undergraduate students in the pilot sample and federal government employees in the
validation sample) would be able to accurately respond to the items in relation to their
immediate supervisor. Much care was taken to develop items that were appropriate for a
subordinate perceptions scale (e.g. items that reflected information and knowledge that a
subordinate would possess regarding their leader) and the initial factor analysis was used
to eliminate items that were unclear or irrelevant in this respect. However, there is still
concern that a small percentage of survey respondents would have difficulty answering
some of the items that asked about their leader’s core values and beliefs. For example,
respondents may have difficulty responding to the item, “My supervisor behaves in
accordance with their core values” if they are unclear as to what their supervisor’s core
values actually are.
A reasonable explanation for this concern would be that some participants may
not have a sufficient degree of contact with their supervisor to be able to come to a full
understanding of his or her true self. The current study tried to avoid this problem by
eliminating from the final data set any respondents who had not served for at least six
123
months under their current supervisor. However, with this restriction in place, 95% of
the retained respondents reported having served under their current supervisor for 6
months to 1 year. There exists the possibility that this span of time was too brief for
some respondents to come to an understanding of their supervisor’s core self. The
amount of time that an employee spends with their supervisor is likely to fluctuate from
person to person and from organization to organization. In some places, leaders may
hold weekly staff meetings or frequently go to lunch with subordinates. In other places,
the contact between a leader and his/her subordinates may occur much more infrequently
(e.g., only during performance appraisals). Future studies should seek to quantify the
amount of time or contact that a subordinate must have with their leader in order to
solidify a relationship. This would ensure that respondents have the knowledge required
to answer items related to their leader’s core self.
Another potential limitation of the current research is the possibility of common
method bias. While many types of common method bias exist, the two that are most
relevant in this context are the consistency motif and common scale formats (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003). The consistency motif is a common rater effect
that refers to the propensity for participants to try to maintain consistency in responses to
similar questions. Although the items were written and analyzed in an effort to display
minimal overlap, many of the items within each of the authentic leadership dimensions
are highly correlated. This suggests the possibility that a consistency motif may exist.
For example, if a participant responds positively to the item, “My supervisor relies on
his/her core values to make important decisions,” they may also respond positively to the
item, “My supervisor behaves in accordance with his/her core values” in order to avoid
124
cognitive dissonance. Common scale format is an item characteristic effect that refers to
artificial covariation produced by the use of the same scale format on a questionnaire.
The nature of the authentic leadership items (e.g. extent of agreement with a number of
statements regarding a leader) are tailored to a Likert-type response format. In addition,
the scales for transformation and charismatic leadership, leader behaviors, and follower
outcomes all utilize a similar Likert-type response format, creating the possibility that a
common scale format bias may exist.
Implications
The results of the current study have implications for the future of authentic
leadership research and practice. The development of a reliable measure of authentic
leadership is a critical first step in moving forward with research on the construct of
authentic leadership. The current study found support for the reliability and factor
structure of a 19-item, subordinate perceptions authentic leadership scale. This measure
should be used as a starting point for future authentic leadership scholars in their quest to
uncover other relevant variables in the construct’s nomological network. Given that the
theory is still in its beginning stages, researchers are encouraged to use the authentic
leadership scale presented here and make modifications where necessary. In particular,
results from the first validation study factor analysis showed that employees may have a
difficult time differentiating between the authentic action and relational transparency
dimensions of authentic leadership. It should be determined if this finding was an artifact
of the sample or a true deviation from the four-dimensional framework proposed in this
study.
125
One potential explanation for this finding relates to a subordinate’s position
relative to their leader and the use of a perception-based measure. In most circumstances,
subordinates will perceive a leader’s actions as the result of being the object or target of
those actions. Thus, subordinates may not have the opportunity to view leader actions
that are not relational in nature, and they may come to view all of a leader’s actions as
relational. If this were the case, it would be difficult for subordinates to differentially
respond to questionnaire items asking about actions that are relational versus non
relational. Instead, they would view these items as one in the same, blurring the
conceptual line between these dimensions. This line of reasoning could help to explain
why relational transparency items failed to form a distinct dimension during the
validation study. Future studies can address this issue by adapting the authentic
leadership items for use with a sample of organizational leaders. That is, the measure
could be adapted as a self-report scale. Items are amenable to being rewritten in this way.
For example, “My supervisor does not compromise his/her values when taking actions as
a leader” could be rewritten as “I do not compromise my values when taking actions as a
leader.” By doing so, future research can determine if the overlap between the authentic
action and relational transparency items was caused by a theoretical or methodological
issue.
Aside from the diffusion of authentic action and relational transparency items,
there is another important finding from the current research that should not be ignored.
The current study laid the foundation for distinguishing authentic leadership from
transformational and charismatic leadership by providing evidence of its inherent ethical
component. Transformational and charismatic leadership theories fail to consider how a
126
leader’s morality can affect behavior as well as subordinate outcomes. However, it will
become increasingly important to continue exploring the ways in which these theories
differ on both a conceptual and empirical level. While theory-building and empirical
research on transformational and charismatic leadership has been well-established,
research on authentic leadership is still in its nascent stages. Transformational and
charismatic leadership theories have been “fine-tuned” over time using multiple
participants, settings, and measurement media. On the contrary, authentic leadership
scholars are just beginning to clearly articulate the construct and develop an effective
measurement tool. As the basic tenets of authentic leadership theory continue to be
explored, it will be important to uncover other points of departure from transformational
and charismatic leadership.
While the current study showed authentic leadership to differ from
transformational and charismatic leadership only on the basis of an inherent moral
component, other possible points of departure were discussed during a review of the
leadership theories. For example, while transformational leaders actively seek to
transform follower self-concepts and develop their abilities, authentic leaders empower
followers to develop themselves by providing a strong behavioral model. By being self-
aware and processing information in a balanced manner, authentic leaders position
themselves to lead followers by example. On the other hand, transformational leaders
articulate a clear vision and purpose to followers on a regular basis in an attempt to gain
their “buy-in” to the organization’s direction. Transformational leaders do not influence
followers by setting an example to be modeled. This proposition related to differences
between authentic and transformational leaders was not empirically tested in the current
127
study. As a result, future research should seek to measure and compare the degree to
which authentic and transformational leaders actively seek to develop follower abilities.
A review of the literature related to charismatic leaders showed that these
individuals may differ from authentic leaders due to a differential focus on leader self-
awareness and self-regulation. While authentic leadership theory takes a strong stance on
the importance of leader self-awareness in ensuring that actions are consistent with
convictions, charismatic leadership theory does not emphasize this aspect. As part of
their self-regulatory process, authentic leaders will evaluate their actions and make
changes if their actions are not in accord with their true selves. However, charismatic
leadership theory does not discuss the importance of this process in leading followers.
Instead, charismatic leaders are thought to lead based on their personal appeal, whether or
not their actions are in accordance with their convictions. Again, this proposition was not
empirically tested during the current study. However, future research should seek to
confirm this proposition by measuring and comparing the self-regulation of authentic and
charismatic leaders.
Some leadership scholars may argue that the high degree of overlap between
authentic leadership, transformational leadership, and charismatic leadership is a reason
to cease research on the construct of authentic leadership. I reject this notion due to clear
theoretical differences between the constructs and the empirical evidence presented in
this study. Specifically, authentic leadership includes a moral component which is
lacking from both transformational and charismatic leadership. Results of the current
study show that transformational and charismatic leadership do not predict perceived
leader morality when the effects of authentic leadership are controlled. Clearly, the
128
authentic leadership construct provides a unique perspective on the study of leader
morality, while transformational and charismatic leadership make no explicit mention of
an ethical component. As a result, it is quite likely that the inherent ethical component of
authentic leadership directly contributes to positive perceptions of a leader’s morality. In
the tenets of transformational and charismatic leadership theories, an effective leader is
simply one who can influence the self-concepts of his or her followers in order to achieve
a common goal. However, what is to stop a transformational or charismatic leader from
influencing their followers to achieve an unethical goal that only benefits the leader?
Questions like this may never be answered if research on authentic leadership does not
continue.
A transformational or charismatic leader can be dangerous when he or she acts
unethically or without regard for the welfare of others. To use a similar example as
above, it can be argued that Adolf Hitler was an extremely charismatic individual. He
was able to influence thousands of people to carry out despicable actions in order to
achieve his goals, and all of the individuals he influenced came to share his common goal
of exterminating various races. While this may be an extreme example, it is clear that the
ability to influence the self-concepts of others is an awesome power. However, that
awesome power also comes with great responsibility. To relate this example back to
organizational leadership, current organizational leaders also have great power to
influence their employees, and it is imperative that these individuals behave responsibly.
When an organizational leader uses his or her influence to gain co m m itm ent to an
unethical activity (e.g. defrauding stockholders, embezzling funds), the consequences for
organizational members and the general public can be devastating.
129
Authentic leadership theory distances itself from other leadership theories by
representing a method of assessment by which we can examine the degree to which a
leader is acting in accordance with his or her true self. In addition, it affords us a method
of assessing the extent to which a leader is aware of his or her own thoughts and
cognitions. These are both critical aspects of leadership that are largely ignored by
transformational and charismatic leadership. It is crucial that we ensure our
organizational leaders are aware of the consequences of their actions and how others may
be affected. Hopefully, with knowledge of how leaders respond to a turbulent and often
tempting business environment, we can seek to prevent future organizational catastrophes
before they happen.
130
References
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1974). Factors influencing intentions and the intention-behavior
relation. Human relations, 27, 1-15.
Allen, N. & Meyer, J. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the
organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal o f Vocational
Behavior, 49, 252-276.
Anderson, J. R. (1976). Language, Memory and Thought. Mahwah, NY: Erlbaum.
Avolio, B. & Gardner, W. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root
of positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315-338.
Avolio, B., Gardner, W., Walumbwa, F., Luthans, F., & May, D. (2004). Unlocking the
mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes
and behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801-823.
Avolio, B., Luthans, F., & Walumbwa, F. (2004). Authentic leadership: Theory-building
for veritable sustained performance. Working paper, Gallup Leadership Institute,
University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Avolio, B., Zhu, W., Koh, W., Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and
organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and
moderating role of structural distance. Journal o f Organizational Behavior, 25,
951-968.
Baddeley, A. (1986). Working Memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Baron, R. & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
131
Bass, B. & Riggio, R. (2005). Transformational Leadership (2nd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publisher.
Bentler, P., & Bonett, D. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
Brumbaugh, R. B. (1971). Authenticity and theories of administrative behavior.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 108-112.
Bums, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Carson, T. L. (2003). Self-interest and business ethics: Some lessons of the recent
corporate scandals. Journal o f Business Ethics, 43, 389-394.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Good Business: Leadership, Flow, and the Making o f
Meaning. New York: Penguin Group.
Cochran, W. (1952). The x2 test of goodness of fit. Annals o f Mathematical Statistics, 23,
315-345.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied Multiple
Regression/Correlation Analysis fo r the Behavioral Sciences (3rd Ed.), Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Conger, J. & Kanungo, R. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership
in organizational settings. Academy o f Management Review, 12, 637-647.
Conger, J. & Kanungo, R. (1994). Charismatic leadership in organizations: Perceived
behavioral attributes and their measurement. Journal o f Organizational Behavior,
15, 439-452.
Cooper, C., Scandura, T., & Schriesheim, C. (2005). Looking forward but learning from
132
our past: Potential challenges to developing authentic leadership theory and
authentic leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 475-493.
Deci, E. & Ryan, R. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
Downey, G., Freitas, A., Michaelis, B., & Khouri, H. (1998). The self-fulfilling prophecy
in close relationships: Rejection sensitivity and rejection by romantic partners.
Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 545-560.
Gangestad, S., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraise.
Psychological Bulletin, 126, 530-555.
Gardner, W., Avolio, B., Luthans, F., May, D., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). “Can you see
the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development.
Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343-372.
Gardner, W. & Schermerhom, J. (2004). Performance gains through positive
organizational behavior and authentic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 33,
270-281.
Goldman, B. & Kemis, M. (2002). The role of authenticity in healthy psychological
functioning and subjective well-being. Annals o f the American Psychotherapy
Association, 5, 18-20.
Hannah, S. & Chan, A. (2004). Veritable authentic leadership: Emergence, functioning,
and impacts. Paper presented at the Gallup Leadership Institute Summit, Omaha,
Nebraska.
Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook o f
Positive Psychology (382-394). New York: Oxford University Press.
133
Harter, S. (1997). The Personal Self in Social Context: Barriers to Authenticity. In R. D.
Ashmore & L. J. Jussim (Eds.), S elf and Identity: Fundamental Issues (81-105).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Henderson, J. & Hoy, W. (1983). Leader authenticity: The development and test of an
operational measure. Educational and Psychological Research, 3, 63-75.
House, R., & Howell, J. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. Leadership
Quarterly, 3, 81-108.
Hies, R., Morgeson, F., & Nahrgang, J. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic
well-being: Understanding leader-follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 16,
373-394.
Kenny, D., Kashy, D., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data Analysis in Social Psychology. In D.T.
Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook o f Social Psychology (233-
265). New York: McGraw Hill.
Kemis, M. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological
Inquiry, 14, 1-26.
Klein, H. J. (1989). An integrated control theory model of work motivation. Academy o f
Management Review, 14, 150-172.
Luthans, F. & Avolio, B. (2003). Authentic Leadership: A Positive Developmental
Approach. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive
Organizational Scholarship (241-258). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Martijn, C., Spears, R., Van Der Plight, J., & Jakobs, E. (1992). Negativity and positivity
effects in person perception and inference: Ability versus morality. European
Journal o f Social Psychology, 22, 453-463.
134
Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a Psychology o f Being (2nd Ed.). Princeton, NJ: Van
Nostrand.
Masuda, A. (2005, April). Power motives and self-evaluation as correlates o f managerial
morality. Poster session presented at the 25th Annual Conference of the Society
for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP), Los Angeles, CA.
May, D., Chan, A., Hodges, T., & Avolio, B. (2003). Developing the moral component of
authentic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32, 247-260.
Meyer, J. P & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the “side-bet theory” of organizational
commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal o f Applied
Psychology, 69, 372-378.
Meyer, J., Stanley, D., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective,
continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of
antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 61,
20-52.
Nunnally, J. & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd E d ). New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Peris, F., Hefferline, R., & Goodman, P. (1965). Gestalt Therapy. Oxford, England: Dell.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases
in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal o f Applied Psychology, ##,879-903.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Moorman, R., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects of followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and
organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.
135
Riggio, R, & Friedman, H. (1982). The interrelationships of self-monitoring factors,
personality traits, and nonverbal social skills. Journal o f Nonverbal Behavior, 7,
33-45.
Rogers, C. (1959). A Theory of Therapy, Personality, and Interpersonal Relationships, as
Developed in the Client-Centered Framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A
Study o f a Science (Vol. 3, 184-256). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Salmela, M. (2005). What is emotional authenticity? Journal fo r the Theory o f Social
Behaviour, 35, 209-230.
Seeman, M. (1966). Status and identity: The problem of inauthenticity. Pacific
Sociological Review, 9, 67-73.
Shamir, B. (1991). The charismatic relationship: Alternative explanations and
predictions. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 81-104.
Shamir, B. & Eilam, G. (2005). “What’s your story?” A life-stories approach to authentic
leadership development. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 395-417.
Shamir, B., House, R., & Arthur, M. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organizational Science, 4, 577-594.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural
equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological Methodology (1982, 290-
312). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
Sparrowe, R. (2005). Authentic leadership and the narrative self. Leadership Quarterly,
16, 419-439.
Tabachnick, B. & Fidell, L. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics (4th Ed.), Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
136
Ungerer, J., Waters, B., Barnett, B., & Dolby, R. (1997). Defense style and adjustment in
interpersonal relationships. Journal o f Research in Personality, 31, 375-384.
Waterman, A. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal
expressiveness(eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal o f Personality and
Social Psychology, 64, 678-691.
Vaillant, G. (1992). Ego Mechanisms o f Defense: A Guide fo r Clinicians and
Researchers. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organization (5th Ed.), Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership
behavior: Integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal o f Leadership
and Organizational Studies, 9, 15-31.
Yukl, G., Wall, S., & Lepsinger, R. (1990). Preliminary report on validation of the
managerial practices survey. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures o f
Leadership (223-237). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America.
137
Appendix A: Final Items Included in the Authentic Leadership Scale
Self Awareness Dimension (5 items)
Item 1 My supervisor attempts to understand him/herself as best as possible.
Item 2 My supervisor tries to understand what constitutes his/her true self.
Item 3 My supervisor stays in touch with his/her feelings in order to know how
they are affecting him/her.
Item 4 My supervisor is conscious of his/her motives when faced with ethical
decisions.
Item 5 My supervisor is not aware of his/her own feelings, beliefs, and motives.
(Reverse scored)
Balanced Processing Dimension (4 items!
Item 1 My supervisor is comfortable evaluating his/her limitations and
shortcomings.
Item 2 My supervisor would rather feel good about him/herself as a leader than
critically evaluate his/her personal limitations and shortcomings. (Reverse
scored)
Item 3 My supervisor has difficulty evaluating his/her personal faults as a leader,
so he/she tries to cast them in a more positive light. (Reverse scored)
Item 4 If my supervisor receives negative feedback, he/she tends to get defensive.
(Reverse scored)
Authentic Action Dimension (5 items)
Item 1 If my supervisor is unsure about an ethical decision, his/her core values
will guide him/her to do the right thing.
138
Item 2 My supervisor does not compromise his/her values when taking action as
a leader.
Item 3 When ethical dilemmas arise, my supervisor is able to rely on his/her core
motives and beliefs to solve problems.
Item 4 My supervisor relies on his/her core values to make important decisions.
Item 5 My supervisor behaves in accordance with his/her core values.
Relational Transparency Dimension (5 items!
Item 1 My supervisor is open and honest with his/her subordinates at all times,
regardless if the information is positive or negative.
Item 2 My supervisor’s thoughts and feelings are clear to his/her subordinates.
Item 3 My supervisor wants his/her subordinates to understand his/her strengths.
Item 4 My supervisor is honest in relationships with his/her subordinates.
Item 5 My supervisor tells the truth to his/her boss and subordinates, even when
it’s not what they want to hear.
139
Appendix B: Validation Study Survey
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A RESEARCH STUDY
Assessing Authentic Leadership
We are researchers in the Department of Psychology at the University at Albany and are
conducting a research study to come to a better understanding of authentic leadership.
Authentic leaders are those individuals who act in accordance with their core values and
beliefs. In this study, we will ask you to complete a short online survey measuring
authentic leadership and some related constructs. The content of the survey is not
invasive or disturbing. Therefore, we do not anticipate any risk in your participation other
than you may be uncomfortable answering some of the questions. While this study does
not have any direct benefits for participants, it will contribute to our understanding of
authentic leadership. This information may help us to develop training programs or
selection tools that can be used to ensure that organizational leaders are behaving
ethically. Completing the survey will take approximately forty minutes.
Your participation in this research is completely voluntary. You are free to

discontinue participation at any time without penalty, and you may also choose to not
answer any questions that you do not wish to for any reason. This project has been
approved by the University at Albany Institutional Review Board. Approval of this
project only signifies that the procedures adequately protect the rights and welfare of the
participants. Please note that absolute confidentiality cannot be guaranteed due to the
limited protections of internet access. However, there is no space for your name or any
other identifying characteristics on the survey. Additionally, only group results will be
reported in the form of publication. No one outside of the research team will view the
survey data, and it will be kept in a secure database.
This form is intended to inform you of your rights as a research participant and seek your
consent to be in the study. By completing the online survey you will be providing your
consent to be part of the study.
If you have any questions concerning your rights as a research participant that have
not been answered or if you wish to report any concerns about the study, you may
contact the Office of Research Compliance at (518) 437-4569 or
orc@uamail.albany.edu. If you have any questions regarding the study, please feel
free to contact the researcher, Tim Lagan at (202) 606-4421, or the faculty sponsor,
Dr. Kevin Williams at (518) 442-4849.
Thank you for your time and help on this project.
140
Part I - Background Information
1. What is your sex?
O Male
O Female
2. How long have you been with your current agency/organization?
o Less than 6 months

o 6 months -1 year
o 1 - 3 years
o 3 - 5 years
o 5 - 1 0 years
o 1 0 - 2 0 years
o Greater than 20 years
3. How long have you worked under your current supervisor?

O Less than 6 months
O 6 months -1 year
O 1 - 3 years
O 3 - 5 years
O 5 - 1 0 years
O 1 0 - 2 0 years
O Greater than 20 years
4. What is your age?
O Under 18
O 18-25
O 26-35
O 36-45
O 46-55
O Over 55
141
Part II - Supervisor Authenticity
Instructions:
Thinking of your current supervisor/manager, please read each of the following
statements and use the following scale to indicate your level of agreement.
1- Strongly Disagree
2- Disagree
3- Slightly Disagree
4- Neither Agree nor Disagree
5- Slightly Agree
6- Agree
7- Strongly Agree
Statement Rating
1. My supervisor is not aware of his/her own feelings, beliefs, and ©@©@©©©
motives.
2. My supervisor tells the truth to his/her boss and subordinates, even ©©©©©©©
when it's not what they want to hear.
3. My supervisor is honest in relationships with his/her subordinates. 0 ©®@©©©
4. When ethical dilemmas arise, my supervisor is able to rely on his/her ©©©©©©©
core motives and beliefs to solve problems.
5. My supervisor stays in touch with his/her feelings in order to know how ©@®©©©@
they are affecting him/her.
6. My supervisor wants his/her subordinates to understand his/her ©©©©©©©
strengths.
7. My supervisor tries to understand what constitutes his/her true self. ©@©@©©©
8. My supervisor is comfortable evaluating his/her limitations and ©®®@©©®
shortcomings.
9. My supervisor is open and honest with his/her subordinates at all ©©©©©©©
times, regardless if the information is positive or negative.
10. My supervisor does not compromise his/her values when taking action ©©©©©©©
as a leader.
11. If my supervisor is unsure about an ethical decision, his/her core ©©©©©©©
values will guide him/her to do the right thing.
12. My supervisor would rather feel good about him/herself as a leader ©@®©©©@
than critically evaluate his/her personal limitations and shortcomings.
13. If my supervisor receives negative feedback, he/she tends to get ©®®©©©@
defensive.
14. My supervisor's thoughts and feelings are clear to his/her ©©®©©©@
subordinates.
15. My supervisor attempts to understand him/herself as best as possible. ©©®©©@©
16. My supervisor is conscious of his/her motives when faced with ethical ©@®@©©®
decisions.
17. My supervisor has difficulty evaluating his/her personal faults as a 0 ©®©©©©
leader, so he/she tries to cast them in a more positive light.
18. My supervisor behaves in accordance with his/her core values. ©@®@©©®
142
Statement Rating
19. My supervisor relies on his/her core values to make important ©@®©©©©
decisions.
143
Part III - Job Perceptions
Instructions:
Thinking of your current job, please read each of the following statements and use the
following scale to indicate your level of agreement.
2- Disagree
5- Slightly Agree
6- Agree
7- Strongly Agree
Statement Rating
1. My job gives me a strong feeling that this is who 1 really am. ©©©©©©©
2. My job gives me the feeling that this is what 1was meant to do. ®©@©©©®
3. 1feel a special fit or meshing with my job. ©®®©©©@
4. My job gives me an intense feeling of being involved. ©©©©©©©
5. My job gives me the feeling of really being alive. ©©©©©©©
6. My job gives me a feeling of being complete or fulfilled. ©©©©©©©
144
Part IV - Supervisor Perceptions
Instructions:
2- Disagree
5- Slightly Agree
6- Agree
7- Strongly Agree
Statement Rating
1. My supervisor often incurs high personal costs for the good of the ©@©©©©@
organization.
2. My supervisor uses non-traditional means to achieve organizational ©@®@©©©
goals.
3. My supervisor influences others by developing mutual liking and ©@®©©©®
respect.
4. My supervisor readily recognizes constraints in the organization's ©©©©©©©
social and cultural environment (such as norms, etc.) that may stand
in the way of achieving organizational objectives.
5. My supervisor engages in unconventional behavior to achieve ©©©©©©©
organizational goals.
6. My supervisor readily recognizes new environmental opportunities ©®®@©©@
(such as favorable physical and social conditions) that may facilitate
achievement of organizational objectives.
7. My supervisor shows sensitivity for the needs and feelings of other ©©©©©©©
members in the organization.
8. My supervisor takes high personal risks for the sake of the ©@©@©©@
organization.
9. My supervisor seizes new opportunities to achieve organizational ©©©©©©©
goals.
10. My supervisor often exhibits very unique behavior that surprises ©©©©©©©
other members of the organization.
11. My supervisor readily recognizes constraints in the physical ©©©©©©©
environment (such as technological limitations, lack of resources,
etc.) that may stand in the way of achieving organizational
objectives.
12. My supervisor provides inspiring strategic and organizational goals. ©©®@©©@
13. In pursuing organizational objectives, my supervisor engages in ©@@©©©©
activities that involve considerable personal risk.
14. My supervisor often brings up ideas about possibilities for the future. ©@®@©©©
15. My supervisor is an exciting public speaker. ©©@@©©®
16. My supervisor appears to be a skillful performer when presenting to ©©®@©©®
a group.
145
Statement Rating
17. My supervisor is able to motivate his/her employees by effectively ©@®@©©®
articulating the importance of what organizational members are
doing.
18. My supervisor recognizes the limitations of other members in the ©@@©©©@
organization.
19. My supervisor tries to maintain the status quo, or normal way of ©@@©©©©
doing things.
20. My supervisor often expresses personal concern for the needs and ©©©©©©©
feelings of other members of the organization.
21. My supervisor readily recognizes barriers or forces within the ©©©©©©©
organization that may block or hinder achievement of his/her goals.
22. My supervisor consistently generates new ideas for the future of the ©©©©©©©
organization.
23. My supervisor recognizes the skills and abilities of other members in ©@®©©©@
the organization.
24. My supervisor advocates following non-risky, well-established ©©©©©©©
courses of action to achieve organizational goals.
25. In pursuing organizational objectives, my supervisor engages in ©©©©©©©
activities that involve considerable self-sacrifice.
146
Part V - Organizational Perceptions
Instructions:
Thinking of your current organization, please read each of the following statements and
use the following scale to indicate your level of agreement.
2- Disagree
5- Slightly Agree
6- Agree
7- Strongly Agree
Statement Rating
1. This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me. ®©@©©©®
2. 1enjoy discussing my organization with people outside it. ®©@©©©@
3. 1would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this ©©©©©©©
organization.
4. 1do not feel "emotionally attached" to this organization. ©©©©©©©
5. 1do not feel like "part of the family" at this organization. ©©©©©©©
6. 1do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization. ®©©@©©®
7. 1really feel as if this organization's problems are my own. ®©®@©©@
8. 1think 1could easily become as attached to another organization as 1 ®@®©©©©
am to this one.
147
Part VI - Supervisor Activities
Instructions:
2- Disagree
5- Slightly Agree
6- Agree
7- Strongly Agree
Statement Rating
1. My supervisor encourages employees to be "team players." ©©®@©©@
2. My supervisor inspires others with his/her plans for the future. ©®®©©©@
3. My supervisor insists on only the best performance. ®®©©©@®
4. My supervisor fosters collaboration among work groups. ®©®©©@®
5. My supervisor treats me without considering my personal feelings. ®©@©©©@
6. My supervisor has stimulated me to rethink the way 1 do things. ©®®@©©®
7. My supervisor has a clear understanding of where our group is ©©©©©©©
going.
8. My supervisor provides a good model for me to follow. ©©©©©©©
9. My supervisor challenges me to think about old problems in new ©©©©©©©
ways.
10. My supervisor leads by example. ©©©©©©©
11. My supervisor gets the group to work together for the same goal. ©@®©©©®
12. My supervisor is always seeking new opportunities for the ©©©©©©©
organization.
13. My supervisor develops a team attitude and spirit among employees. ©®®@©©®
14. My supervisor paints an interesting picture of the future for our ©®®©©©@
group.
15. My supervisor acts without considering my feelings. ©@®@©©@
16. My supervisor has ideas that have challenged me to reexamine ©©@©©©@
some of the basic assumptions about my work.
17. My supervisor shows respect for my personal feelings. ©@©©©©®
18. My supervisor is able to get others committed to his/her dream. ®©@©©©@
19. My supervisor leads by "doing" rather than simply by "telling." ©©@@©©@
20. My supervisor will not settle for second best. ©®®©©©@
21. My supervisor behaves in a manner that is thoughtful of my personal ©®@©©©@
needs.
22. My supervisor asks questions that prompt me to think. ©@®©©©®
23. My supervisor shows us that he/she expects a lot from us. ©©©©©©©
148
Part VII - Supervisor Ethicality
Instructions:
2- Disagree
5- Slightly Agree
6- Agree
7- Strongly Agree
Statement Rating
1. My supervisor's actions are consistent with his/her convictions. ®©@@©©®
2. My supervisor will lie in order to get what he/she wants. ©©(3)©©©®
3. My supervisor will give employees rewards based strictly on their level ©©@©©©@
of competence and achievement.
4. My supervisor believes that, in business, promises are made to be ®©®@©©@
broken.
5. When making decision at work, my supervisor will attend to all facts ©©@©©©@
even those that he/she does not want to hear.
6. When making business decisions about rewards, my supervisor lets ©©©©©©©
his/her feelings override the facts.
7. My supervisor will consider office politics rather than strictly basing ©©©©©©©
decisions on employee merit.
8. To my supervisor, loyalty to the company is more important than ©©©©©©©
loyalty to the truth or moral principles.
9. If my supervisor knows that something is the right thing to do, he/she ©@©@©©®
will act accordingly.
149
Part VIII - Supervisor Behaviors
Instructions:
statements and use the following scale to indicate how often your supervisor/manager
uses each type of behavior.
0- Don’t Know or Not Applicable

1- Not at all
2- To a limited extent
3- To a moderate extent
4- To a considerable extent
5- To a great extent
Statement Rating
1. Challenges people to reexamine traditional strategies and practices. ® © © @ © ©
2. Assigns an important task and lets you decide how to do it without ©©©©©©
interfering.
3. Trusts you to make an important decision without getting prior ©©©©©©
approval.
4. Provides opportunities to develop your skills. ©©©©©©
5. Sets an example of dedication, courage, and self-sacrifice in his/her ®©@©@©
own behavior.
6. Leads by example (to demonstrate what type of behavior is ©©©©©©
appropriate and ethical).
7. Asks questions that encourage people to think about old problems in ® © © @ @ ©
new ways.
8. Behaves in a way that is consistent with his/her espoused values. ©©©©©©
9. Provides coaching to help you develop your skills and confidence. ® © @ @ © ©
10. Asks questions that help you learn how to perform a task better. ©©©©©©
11. Helps you learn how to solve a difficult problem, rather than just @©©@@©
telling you the solution.
12. Asks people to look at a problem from a different perspective. @ © © ® @ ©
13. Encourages you to take responsibility for determining the best way to ©©©©©©
do your work.
14. Encourages people to reconsider their basic assumptions about the @©©@©©
work.
15. Is willing to accept the same hardships or risks that he/she asks of @©©@@©
others.
16. Encourages you to take the initiative to deal with an immediate © © @ ® @ ©
problem rather than waiting for someone to tell you what to do.
150

4 Dimensionlea

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 Dimensionlea

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EXAMINING AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP:

DEVELOPMENT OF A FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SCALE

AND IDENTIFICATION OF A NOMOLOGICAL NETWORK

Submitted to the University at Albany, State University of New York

the Requirements for the Degree of

College of Arts & Sciences

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Chapter 2: Literature Review and Hypotheses....................................................................6

Defining the Construct................................................................................................... 17

Relationship to Other Forms of Leadership.................................................................. 23

Transformational and Charismatic Leadership............................................................. 23

Identifying a Nomological Network..............................................................................29

Chapter 3: Pilot Study........................................................................................................40

Variability and Factor Structure................................................................................ 45

Relationship with Other Forms of Leadership...........................................................55

Chapter 4: Validation Study...............................................................................................62

Variability and Factor Structure.................................................................................69

Relationship with Other Forms of Leadership.......................................................... 86

Test of a Nomological Network and Mediation Model.............................................88

Chapter 5: General Discussion......................................................................................... 116

Behavioral Correlates and Outcomes of Authentic Leadership...................................117

Divergent Validity Evidence........................................................................................119

Assumptions and Limitations......................................................................................120

Table 1: Kemis’ (2003) Four-Dimensional Conceptualization of Authenticity................. 9

Table 2: Comparing Two Conceptualizations of Authenticity Dimensions..................... 21

Table 3: Authentic Leadership Dimensions and their Definitions.................................... 43

Table 4: Descriptive Statistics for Pilot Study Variables.................................................. 47

Scale (Varimax Rotation)....................................................................................52

Scale (Direct Oblimin Rotation)..........................................................................54

Table 7: Correlations Among Dimensions of Authentic Leadership (Pilot Study) 56

Table 8: Correlations Among Dimensions of Authentic Leadership and Dimensions of

Transformational Leadership (Pilot Study).........................................................57

Table 9: Correlations Among Dimensions of Authentic Leadership and Dimensions of

Charismatic Leadership (Pilot Study)..................................................................59

Table 10: Descriptive Statistics for Validation Study Variables.......................................70

Table 11: Correlations Among Aggregate Variables Included in the

Table 13: Goodness-of-Fit Indicators for Hypothesized Models of Authentic

Four-Factor Confirmatory Model......................................................................83

Table 16: Correlations Among Dimensions of Authentic Leadership

Table 17: Correlations Among Dimensions of Authentic Leadership and Dimensions of

Transformational Leadership (Validation Study)..............................................87

Table 18: Correlations Among Dimensions of Authentic Leadership and Dimensions of

Charismatic Leadership (Validation Study).......................................................89

Table 22: Correlations of Aggregate Authentic, Transformational, and Charismatic

Leadership Variables with Leader Behavior and Follower Outcome

Table 23: Hierarchical Regression Examining the Relationship of Authentic and

Transformational Leadership Dimensions to Developing Behavior...............102

Table 24: Hierarchical Regression Examining the Relationship of Authentic and

Transformational Leadership Dimensions to Encouraging

Table 25: Hierarchical Regression Examining the Relationship of Authentic and

Charismatic Leadership Dimensions to Developing Behavior........................104

Table 26: Hierarchical Regression Examining the Relationship of Authentic and

Charismatic Leadership Dimensions to Encouraging Innovative Thinking... 106

Transformational Leadership Dimensions to Eudaemonic Well-Being 110

Table 28: Hierarchical Regression Examining the Relationship of Authentic and

Transformational Leadership Dimensions to Perceptions of

Table 29: Hierarchical Regression Examining the Relationship of Authentic and

Charismatic Leadership Dimensions to Eudaemonic Well-Being................. 112

Table 30: Hierarchical Regression Examining the Relationship of Authentic and

Charismatic Leadership Dimensions to Perceptions of Leader Ethicality 114

Figure 1: Visual depiction of the hypothesized relationships between authentic

leadership, leader behaviors, and follower outcomes..........................

Appendix A: Final Items Included in the Authentic Leadership Scale...........................138

The second component of authenticity involves the unbiased processing of self