Review Article

An Investigation of
Authentic Leadership’s Individual and
Group Influences on Follower Responses
Journal of Management Vol. 44 No. 2, February 2018

Carol Gill
University of Melbourne
Arran Caza
Griffith University

Instructor: Prof. T.K. and Prof. Kao

Presented by: Jeliteng Pribadi (JP)
PhD Program in Management
I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
 About the authors
Dr. Carol Gill. Ass. Prof. Melbourne Business School. Specialize:
executive learning & Dev., HRM and OD. More 25 years as academic
and practitioner. Member of APS & COP. Position at BHP and BoM.
Worked in international collaborations and with clients (Aus, US,
UK, Indonesia, China & Malaysia). Member of the AoM (Australia,
NZ, US, UK).

Dr. Arran Caza. Ass. Prof. Griffith University, QLD, Aus (2012 – 2015)
& Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba, Canada (2015 –
now). Awards:
– Western AoM Ascendant Scholar & Star Reviewer Award (2013),
– Diamond in the Rough award for best faculty proposal to Cognition in
the Rough workshop (with B.B. Caza & Lind, 2011)
– Best paper award from the Leadership & Governance Stream of the
Australia and New Zealand Academy of Management (with Zhang &
Wang, 2008) and many more.

2
 Keywords:

• authentic leadership;
• multilevel analysis;
• identification;
• social influence;
• trustworthiness;
• trust;
• psychological capital;
• leader–member exchange
 About the paper
General subject:
• Investigated and clarified aspects of multilevel nature
of authentic leadership (AL) and its effects on
followers.

Specific subject:
• Distinct effects: AL (personalized & generalized) and
the follower’s coworkers.
 Personalized AL = Leader’s direct effect on a follower
 Generalized AL = leader’s indirect or group-based effect on a follower
 Background
• AL become important & popular construct
• AL is a set of interrelated behaviors
(how leaders act toward followers, make ethical
decisions, and use information)1
• Empirical studies linking AL to follower
responses2), & even more follower outcomes3)
• Significant gaps remain in the literature4) 
neglected important levels-of-analysis issues5)

1) Avolio, et al., 2004; Gardner et al., 2011; 2) Gardner, et al., 2011; 3) Caza, et al., 2010;
Hsiung, 2012; 4) Gardner et al.,2011; 5) (Gardner et al., 2011; Yammarino, et al., 2008).
 Background…(cont..)
• AL theory is mature: need clearer conceptualization
& empirical rigor  across levels1
• However, prior definitions and analysis do not clearly
address levels-of-analysis issues2
• Without clear theory and empirics, inappropriate
techniques may mislead conclusions and derail the
field’s development3

1) Cho & Dansereau, 2010; Gardner et al., 2011; Yammarino et al., 2008
2) Yammarino et al., 2008; 3) X. Wang & Howell, 2012
 Purpose
• To clarify theoretical explanations: P_AL &
G_AL influences on follower responses:
– comprehensive literature review
– an empirical study
• Addresses multi level by theoretically
explaining and empirically examining
(individual and group-based) effects from AL
• To consolidate, clarify, and extend AL theory
 Theoretical Foundation:
AL Dimension : 4 Central Responses

• Self-awareness
– leaders’ understanding of their strengths
& weaknesses & their impact on others
“ These four
responses are
• Transparency presumed to
– leaders openly sharing information &
expressing their genuine selves to others be the most
• Balanced processing important
– leaders objectively analyzing all relevant consequences
data before making a decision
of AL  focus
• Internalized moral perspective
of the
“
– leaders being guided by internal morals &
aligning their behavior with these values investigation

Gardner et al., (2011); Walumbwa, et al.,(2008)

 Clarify & Extend Theory
Three steps:
1. Add 46 studies to the seven in Gardner et al.
(2011).
2. Explain why one should expect both P_AL and
G_AL to influence outcomes.
3. Report on new empirical data that provide the
first simultaneous test of P_AL and G_AL effects
on the four central responses.

 Personalized AL (P_AL) = Leader’s direct effect on a follower

 Generalized AL (G_AL) = leader’s indirect or group-based effect on a follower
 Review of Empirical Studies
• Adopted a new approach by distinguishing
between the influences of:
– personalized AL (P_AL)  leader’s direct effect on
a follower
– generalized AL (G_AL), leader’s indirect effect on
a follower as a result of the leader’s direct effects
among the follower’s coworker group.
 Review of Empirical Studies
• Comprehensive literature search (Google Scholar)1
– 423 citations Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ)2
– 25 Authentic Leadership Inventory (ALI) 3

• Retained articles, peer reviewed, in English

• Reported on the relationship between follower-rated

AL & some outcome variable.
– Antecedents of AL4 or leader self-reports of AL5  excluded

1) 2010 onward since Gardner et al., 2011 ; 2) Walumbwa et al., 2008, 3) Neider & Schriesheim, 2011;
4) Randolph-Seng & Gardner, 2012; 5) Cerne, Dimovski, Maric, Penger, & Skerlavaj, in press
 Hypothesis
1. P_AL will have a positive relationship with the
four central follower responses:
(a) identification with the leader, (b) perceptions of
leader trustworthiness, (c) positive follower states, and
(d) positive social exchange.

2. G_AL will have a positive relationship with the

four central follower responses:
(a) identification with the leader, (b) perceptions of
leader trustworthiness, (c) positive follower states, and
(d) positive social exchange.
 Method: Data
• 1 division, a large multinational corp, 52 team leaders
• Confidential online surveys
• 34 groups responded, 3 excluded (less than 50% follower
response rates).
• Final sample
– 31 leaders (60% response rate), 104 followers (81%) age of 35 to 50
years. 2 leaders had bachelor’s degree
– M = 18.2 yr work experience (SD = 7.5), 12.3 in management (SD =
6.9).
– The follower sample = 49% female, age of 35 to 50 years.
– 63% had bachelor’s degrees
– More than 10 years’ work experience
– Most had been working with their leader for 1 to 3 years.
 Reduce CMV
• Followers completed two separate surveys (3 days apart)
• Survey 1, followers rated their leader’s behavior (16-item ALQ)1
• Survey 2, measures 4 outcomes (Likert scales, 1 to 7):
– Identification with leader2
– Leader trustworthiness3
– PsyCap [(PsyCap Questionnaire (PCQ)]4
– Social exchange: relationship quality using the Multidimensional
Measure of LMX [MDM-LMX]5.
• Gathered a variety of individual and dyadic demographic
information for leaders and followers (gender, age, education, and
work experience as well as the length of the leader–follower
relationship.

1) Walumbwa et al., 2008; 2) Mael & Ashforth, 1992; 3) Mayer & Davis, 1999; 4) Luthans, et al., 2007;
5) Liden & Maslyn, 1998
 Steps in Analytical Approach
1. A series of psychometric analyses
- Reliability /Cronbach’s alpha, 2 traditional CFAs, and 2
multilevel CFAs.
2. Constructed G_AL scores for each follower.
3. Used random effects multilevel modeling to
assess the simultaneous influence of P_AL
and G_AL
- While also accounting for the non-independence of group
members’ responses.
CFA = confirmatory factory analyses
 Statistical Analysis
• Reliability Test: All showed good reliability (see Table 2)
• 4 CFAs to assess the scales’ performance (see Table 3).
– Model A: a traditional one (ignoring the non-independence of the
responses)
– Model B: allowed the indicators’ error terms to correlate in a
fashion consistent with the a priori dimensional structure of the
scales (the errors of the transparency items in the ALQ were
allowed to correlate with each other but not with the errors for any
other items).
– Multilevel CFAs (MCFAs) of the ALQ (Muthen, 1994).
• Model C: treated the ALQ as uni-dimensional;
• Model D: used correlated error terms to reflect the ALQ’s
multidimensional structure.
Not sig
 Result
• Hypothesis 1: fully supported
– P_AL was positively associated with all four of the
outcomes.
• Hypothesis 2: partial supported
– G_AL was positively associated with 2/4 outcomes.
 Discussion
• Advances AL theory by clearly specifying the
mechanisms underlying group-based effects
and providing evidence consistent with those
mechanisms.
• Individualized effect of AL (P_AL) had positive
effects on 4 most important follower
responses associated with AL
– two additional positive effects from indirect,
group-based AL (G_AL).
β ρ
 Theoretical Implications
1. Replicated previous findings
2. Provided additional influence
– The perceptions of AL among a follower’s
coworkers (G_AL)
3. Offering a different way to conceptualize and
measure the group-based effects of AL.
 Limitations and Future Research
• Described the social influence mechanisms: AL
may indirectly affect followers through coworkers
(G_AL)  beyond the scope of this study.
• Future research  could include social
identification & other social influence measures
to assess when one type of influence is more
important than another & how the three interact.
• It may be possible to introduce specific coworker
outcomes as mediators.
 Conclusion
• AL influences followers both directly and
indirectly, through its influence on coworkers.
• Provided possible explanations for these indirect
effects (had not previously been considered),
• Reported evidence consistent with those
explanations.
– Such indirect, peer-influence processes are a better
way of assessing the group-based effects of AL.