Which perspective on authentic leadership defines it as a reciprocal process?

Authentic Leadership Development

As authentic leadership theory continues to evolve, some have recommended that the field pay greater attention to authentic leadership development (Avolio et al., 2010). As discussed earlier, authentic leadership development was the primary concern of some of the earliest models of authentic leadership. This focus may have arisen from the initial impetus for learning about authentic leadership (e.g., corporate malfeasance) and a desire to change what was perceived as a societal trend toward the development of inauthentic leaders.

Some scholars have cautioned that we face many challenges in developing authentic leaders (Cooper et al., 2005), while others have advocated in favor of such development (Avolio and Gardner, 2005). A recent review of authentic leadership development (Avolio, 2010) traces the personal experiences of Bruce Avolio, who has been on the front lines of authentic leadership development research. Investigations into authentic leadership development ask whether leaders are born or made, and whether leaders can be changed by experienced planned interventions. In addition, models of authentic leadership development include trigger events, self-reflection, and developmental readiness, as well as core components of authentic leadership theory. Avolio et al. (2010) note that the future of authentic leadership development will likely incorporate more consideration of contextual influences, as much of the focus on training and development of authentic leaders has taken place outside of the context where they work. One way to better explicate the work context would involve embedding leadership training into organizations internally (rather than addressing the need by using an external source, such as a leadership consultant).

Abstract:

This chapter focuses on the process of how to enhance diversity in the workplace by combining authentic leadership with the establishment of cultural competencies. For many academic libraries, the challenge to support diversity involves understanding cultural competencies and understanding the barriers to encouraging openness to diversity. Leadership plays a prominent role in cultivating a healthy work climate that supports inclusivity and diversity. Authentic leadership is one management style that brings positive leadership to the organization. This chapter reviews the theories of authentic leadership and explains why diverse populations do not all view authentic leadership in the same way. Combining cultural competencies with authentic leadership may be a way to bridge the gap in viewpoints and encourage openness to diversity. The authors will present a practical case study on how a robust staff development program and an intentional diversity program successfully changed the work culture to one that actively supports diversity.

Providing an appropriate model

This set of practices entails leading by example. These are practices also associated with models of authentic leadership (Avolio and Gardner, 2005) and include demonstrating transparent decision making, confidence, optimism, hope, resilience, and consistency between words and deeds. Locke (2002) claims that core values are established by modeling core values in one’s own practices. Both Hallinger (2003) and Waters et al. (2003) note the contribution to leader effects of maintaining high visibility in the school, a visibility associated with high-quality interactions with both staff and students.

Also encompassed by this dimension is Bass’ idealized influence, a partial replacement for his original charisma dimension. Avolio (1994) claims that leaders exercise idealized influence when they serve as role models with the appropriate behaviors and attitudes that are required to build trust and respect in followers. Such modeling on the part of leaders “sets an example for employees to follow that is consistent with the values the leader espouses” (Podsakoff et al., 1990: 112).

Emerging Areas of Research

Although leadership research has come a long way, more work needs to be done. One key factor in the selection of topics that require further investigation should be relevance of a topic to leadership's various constituencies. But ‘relevance’ needs to be broadly construed: the subject of leadership should be seen as applicable not only to a few highly exceptional individuals at the top of the organization but to a much broader audience.

Because of the challenges growing out of the exponential rate of change in this age of transformation, a number of issues feature prominently on the research agenda of the future.

Adaptive leadership: Organizations are now facing challenges at a rate unprecedented to previous times, with companies having to operate on a global level, keeping up with shifting competition bases, increased accountability from stakeholders, and the need for innovation and reinvention in order to stay ahead of the game. Leaders have to learn new ways of operating and mobilize their people throughout the organization to change its mind-set and behaviors in order to thrive in new business environments (Heifetz and Laurie, 1997). Leaders have the challenge of breaking long-standing behavioral patterns of their own, provide leadership that involves others, and to help organizational members to change their own behavior, while also managing the stress and uncertainty of change. They have to be able to create an environment in order to allow people to collaborate and work more interdependently, to build important relationships across boundaries, to lead with a more flexible style, and to be open and adaptable to new ideas (Martin, 2007). However, how does one go about to create a cultural change within the organization, and given the increased reliance of organizations on creativity and innovation, what can leaders do to stimulate and sustain this process?

Authentic leadership: Authenticity has its roots in Greek philosophy “know thyself” (Plato) and has seen variations over time “to thine own self be true” (Shakespeare). To guide others effectively, leaders must know themselves, who they are, and why they do what they do and to live up to their values. Authenticity suggests that individuals need to have a complete view of themselves and this includes taking into account both their strengths and weaknesses. Those who fail to consider their irrational and dark sides are like captains who blindly plow their ships into a field of icebergs: the greatest danger is hidden below the surface. Avolio et al. (2004) define authentic leaders as those 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 perspectives, knowledge, and strengths; aware of the context in which they operate; and who are confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, and of high moral character” (p. 4). In confronting, with honesty, ones inner theatre, an individual is then free to discover and express his or her true self. Moreover, authenticity reflects back onto others. Through increased self-awareness, self-regulation, and positive modeling, authentic leaders can foster the development of authenticity in followers and provide them with a sense of purpose and self-determination. In turn, followers' authenticity contributes to their well-being and the attainment of sustainable and veritable performance (George et al., 2007). However, the link between authentic leadership and sustained organizational performance needs to be clarified. A leader may be authentic in his or her actions, but this might not necessarily lead to better organizational performance, nor be transmitted to followers. What are the factors which facilitate this transmission? In what ways can authenticity have a positive effect on organizational performance and can these positive effects be transmitted to followers? Another interesting issue is the mitigating role of culture on the transmission of authentic behavior from leaders to followers all across the organization. Links can also be made to help executives, through group coaching sessions, to ask the basic questions of who they are, what they believe in, and why they do what they do and in doing so, discover their authentic side. Group coaching has proven to be highly effective in creating authentizotic organizations, places where people are authentic, feel at their best – and give their best (Kets de Vries, 2001).

Group coaching for leadership development: Leadership coaching, which most commonly takes the form of one-on-one interactions between an executive and a coach, has changed the way many progressive organizations view professional and personal growth and development. It is a specific form of intervention that can be carried out strategically with individuals, teams, or an entire organization. While one-on-one coaching certainly has its benefits, leadership group (or team) coaching – in essence, an experiential training ground for learning to function as a high-performing team – is a great antidote to organizational silo formation and thinking, and a very effective way to help leaders become more adept at sensing the hidden psychodynamic undercurrents that influence team behavior. Its aim is to direct a group of people toward a specific, mutually determined goal and to accelerate organizational performance by providing focus and awareness; it fosters strategic agility. Leadership group coaching sessions provide a safe space for honest and open explorations and confrontations wherein teams challenge and reassess their assumptions about themselves and others and in doing so, understand why they behave the way they do and why the team as a whole behaves the way it does. They undergo a cohesive experience, bringing the team closer together, not only in terms of resolving conflict and achieving mutual understanding, but also increasing shared accountability and renewed commitment (Kets de Vries et al., 2007). When instilled as part of its leadership development culture, team-oriented coaching cultures are like networked webs in the organization, connecting people laterally in the same departments, across departments, between teams, and up and down the hierarchy. However, more attention has to be paid to differentiating the quality and effects of the many leadership coaching programs currently available to determine those that have viable effects on sustained organizational performance and to measure such effects once executives take it out of the group coaching sessions and into their organizational life.

Leaders fulfill many different roles in people's imagination. They are catalysts of change; they are symbols; they are objects of identification; and they are scapegoats when things go wrong. Leaders are also prone to hubris. As Napoleon (an expert on the topic of hubris as well as leadership) once said, “Glory is fleeting, but obscurity lasts forever.” All leaders are susceptible to the darker sides of power. The most effective leaders, however, are the ones who know how to balance action with reflection by using self-insight as a restraining force when the sirens of power are beckoning.

What this paper adds

•

Significant associations between authentic leadership and a wide variety of mediators and staff outcomes such as job satisfaction, structural empowerment, work engagement, and trust in the manager were identified, and there were negative associations between authentic leadership and negative workplace behaviours (such as bullying and incivility) and burnout.

Since only one study included an antecedent of authentic leadership, studies examining potential predictors and strategies for developing authentic leadership are warranted.

The adapted model of authentic leadership based on review findings may serve as a guide to understand the complex mediators and outcomes of authentic leadership in healthcare.

3.6.1 AL theory

Theories focused on AL and/or AL development per se, as opposed to authenticity in general, or theories that provided the conceptual underpinnings for AL theory, were grouped into this category. These include the perspectives previously examined during our discussion of the AL definitions presented in Table 1. Hence many of the publications that advanced or extended initial models of AL fall within this category (e.g., Avolio, 2005; Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Avolio & Luthans, 2006; Avolio, Gardner et al., 2004; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Bhindi & Duignan, 1997; Duignan & Bhindi, 1997; Gardner, Avolio, Luthans et al., 2005; George, 2003; Ilies et al., 2005; Luthans & Avolio, 2003; May et al., 2003; Shamir & Eilam, 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008); not surprisingly, they are also well represented among foundational citations in Table 5. An examination of Table 4 reveals that while the majority (31) of publications that built upon AL theory appeared during the fertile 2005–2006 time period, work in the area continues to draw upon these theories as the field matures.

Authenticity

The topic of authentic leadership has received considerable attention in recent organizational and business ethics literature (e.g., Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Leroy, Palanski, & Simons, 2012; Leroy, Anseel, Gardner, & Sels, 2015; Peus, Wesche, Streicher, Braun, & Frey, 2012). Avolio et al. (2004) defined authentic leaders as “those 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 perspectives, knowledge, and strengths; aware of the context in which they operate; and who are confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, and of high moral character” (p. 802–3). Authentic leadership can incorporate transformational, servant, spiritual or other forms of positive leadership. The key distinction is that authentic leaders are anchored by a deep sense of self and know where they stand on important issues, values and beliefs. They also act as role-models and convey to others, through both actions and words what they represent in terms of principles, values and ethics. In that sense, they shape followers' social identity and this is why we consider authentic leadership as an important variable on the group level. It has also been proposed that the development of authentic leaders depends in large part on the centrality of a leader identity to personal identities (Shamir & Eilam, 2005). In developing leadership competence and effectiveness, it is critical to examine how a leader's self-concept is formed, changed, and influences behavior (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009) as well as how the leadership self-narrative develops (Shamir & Eilam, 2005). Despite the theoretical connections between leader identity and authentic leadership that have already been made, research in this area is still in early stages.

4.2 Authentic leadership development

In a special issue of The Leadership Quarterly on the topic of authentic leadership, Avolio and Gardner (2005) noted that authentic leadership development involves “ongoing processes whereby leaders and followers gain self-awareness and establish open, transparent, trusting and genuine relationships, which in part may be shaped and impacted by planned interventions such as training” (p. 322). Thus, the development of authentic leadership is conceptualized as a more complex process than just the development of authentic leaders. The former involves the development of an authentic relationship (i.e., social capital focus) between leaders and their followers; in contrast, the development of authentic leaders is more intrapersonal in nature (i.e., human capital focus).

Avolio and Gardner (2005) highlighted the environmental and organizational forces that have generated interest in the study of authentic leadership and its development. They described the similarities and defining features of authentic leadership theory in comparison to other perspectives of leadership (e.g., transformational, charismatic, servant, and spiritual leadership). In this vein, a model of the relationships between authentic leadership, follower development, and follower performance was presented (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005). The proposed model highlighted the developmental processes of leader and follower self-awareness and self-regulation, as well as the influence of the leaders' and followers' personal histories on authentic leadership and followership. The model also considered the reciprocal effects of an inclusive, ethical, and compassionate organizational climate. Positive modeling was viewed as the primary mechanism through which leaders developed authentic followers and the outcomes of authentic leader–follower relationships included heightened levels of follower trust in the leader, enhanced engagement and workplace well-being, as well as more sustainable performance. Although this approach is commendable for including both leaders and followers in the development process, it is unclear what it offers beyond the well-established effects of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory. Future tests of authentic leadership development will need to control for LMX in demonstrating a unique contribution to the establishment of authentic relationships.

Ilies, Morgeson, and Nahrgang (2005) presented a somewhat different model of authentic leader development that focused on the elements of authenticity and the processes through which authentic leadership contributes to the well-being of both leaders and followers. Authentic leaders are expected to consider multiple sides and multiple perspectives of an issue, and gather related information in a relatively balanced manner. Similar to what was proposed by Gardner et al. (2005), the focus is on positive modeling as the primary means used by authentic leaders to influence followers and to generate well-being as a positive outcome of authenticity.

Researchers have also stressed the importance of values and behaviors to the understanding and development of authentic leadership. In an investigation of the effects of emotions and values on leader authenticity, Michie and Gooty (2005) posited that emotions and values play a fundamental role in the emergence and development of authentic leadership. The authors' central thesis was that positive other-directed emotions (e.g., gratitude, appreciation) motivate authentic leaders to behave in ways that reflect self-transcendent values (e.g., honesty, loyalty, equality). By stressing the importance of emotions in understanding leadership and followership, this approach represented a somewhat different and novel perspective on the development of authentic leadership.

To further explore the boundary conditions of authentic leadership theory, Eagly (2005) presented a relational view of authenticity in arguing that much more is required of leaders than transparently conveying and acting on their values. Achieving relational authenticity is thought to require that followers afford leaders the legitimacy to promote a set of values on their behalf. Leaders are able to elicit the personal and social identification of followers only when these conditions exist. Eagly suggested that eliciting identification is more difficult for female than male leaders, as it is more generally for members of outsider groups (e.g., minorities, non-natives) who have not traditionally had access to leadership roles. Because of the interactive effects of gender role and leader role requirements, achieving relational authenticity is challenging for many women in positions of authority. The development of women leaders should therefore focus on the relational aspects of achieving authenticity as a leader. Trends toward participative decision making and transformational leadership may also increase the probability that women and other outsiders will achieve success as leaders.

In a critique of authentic leadership approaches, Cooper, Scandura, and Schriesheim (2005) advised researchers in this area to learn from the mistakes made in other areas of leadership research. They suggested that the core propositions of this theory must first be tested by studying the developmental processes that encompass authentic leadership. Authentic leadership theory, therefore, must be examined through experimental investigations of the hypothesized relationships between its core development processes and essential theoretical constructs. Until the theory has been properly tested (including controlling for the effects of LMX), the authors warned against a rush to push authentic leadership development in practice.

What this paper adds

•

This review provides robust evidence that relational leadership styles, such as transformational and authentic leadership styles, are associated with significantly improved outcomes for the nursing workforce and their work environments.

Task focused leadership styles, particularly passive or dissonant leadership styles, were generally associated with negative nursing health and workforce outcomes. Transactional leadership was unique in that it was linked to improved job satisfaction and some outcomes related to relations among staff. However, this style was also associated with significantly poorer nursing workforce outcomes in areas such as empowerment, staff health, and wellbeing.