Amanda Roche
HONR 401-03
5/6/15
Authentic Leadership Model
A recent addition to leadership theories is the authentic leadership model.
Authentic leadership is less focused on the traits or behavioral style of a leader.
Instead of looking at specific qualities that create a perfect leader, the model focuses
on the source of good leadership. An authentic leader acts in a positive way that is
rooted in their personal beliefs. As I explored the topic of authentic leadership in
depth, researched past studies and reflected on my own experiences, I have found
that I agree with the authentic leadership model.
To begin with, the authentic leadership model can be explained more in
depth. Since this model is relatively new, there is no set definition for authentic
leadership. This is a model that is continuously being researched, studied and
refined to fully encompass the source of great leadership. In this instance I will use
the definition of authentic leadership as “a pattern of leader behavior that draws
upon and promotes both positive psychological capacities and a positive ethical
climate, to foster greater self-awareness, an internalized moral perspective, balanced
processing of information, and relational transparency on the part of leaders working
with followers, fostering positive self-development” (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner,
Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008). The first part of the definition, having positive
psychological capacities and ethical climate is included because it does help in the
development of authentic leadership, but it is not at the core of the model. Similarly,
the last statement of leaders working with followers is important in the authentic
leadership model, but is also not viewed as a core component of the model. Through
Roche 2
the given definition, authentic leadership can be broken down by four core
components: self-awareness, internalized moral perspective, balanced processing of
information, and relational transparency. To better understand authentic leadership
it is important to grasp the meaning of the four components mentioned. Selfawareness truly understands one’s strengths and weaknesses. Included in selfawareness is to know yourself when exposed to others and your impact on others.
To be self-aware is to understand how you make meaning from the world and how
that impacts the way you view yourself. Secondly is relational transparency. In short
it means to clearly present your authentic self to others instead of a fake or
distorted version of yourself. This will create a trusted environment for everyone.
Thirdly, balanced processing is when the leader objectively looks at all data before
making a decision. They are able to ask for views that even challenge their personal
position. Lastly, internalized moral perspective refers to self-regulation that is
guided by the leader’s internal moral values and standards. Instead of leading off of
group, organizational and societal pressures, the leader is able to make decisions
and behave in a way that reflects their internal moral values. (Walumbwa et al.,
2008). To summarize, “authentic leaders show to others that they genuinely desire
to understand their own leadership to serve others more effectively” (as cited in
Walumbwa et al., 2008).
Next, previous accredited studies commonly show two major benefits of
authentic leadership. One benefit is associated with the leader and the other on the
followers. Past studies have shown that authentic leaders tend to have a higher
Roche 3
psychological well-being. For example, Kinsler (2014) reports on a study on the
Singapore construction industry. The findings show a positive correlation between
the authenticity of the leaders and their overall well-being. Authentic leaders show a
greater desire for positive relationships, a sense of purpose, mastery of their
environments and motivation to grow stronger as leaders. The study suggested,
“authentic leaders are driven to perform without conforming to others, and have
more self-esteem due to feelings of self-worth” (Kinsler, 2014). The Singapore study
is just one study of many that showed authentic leadership has a positive influence
on a leader’s overall well-being.
The second major benefit is a positive influence on the follower’s overall
well-being. Walumbwa et al. (2008) used five different samples from China, Kenya
and the US to measure the affect of authentic leadership. The study concluded a
significantly positive change related to the follower’s outcomes. Measured in the
study was the follower commitment and their performance. Walumbwa et al.
(2008) found authentic leaders create high engagement in the work setting and thus
create a long-term motivation and a high level of performance. The results of this
study imply that an authentic leader has a positive impact not only on themselves,
but also on their followers. Wang (2013) also provides another example where the
followers have benefited from authentic leadership. Wang’s study focused on the
relationship between an authentic leader and the employee, specifically on the
employee’s trust and engagement (2013). The biggest factor that created a positive
change was consistency in the leader’s words and actions (Wang, 2013). An
Roche 4
authentic leader is always true to their beliefs and should thus be consistent in their
manner of leading. Painter reiterates this point by saying, “Colleagues in the
organization can smell inconsistency, and this leads to an artificial leader being
viewed as two-faced and manipulative” (2014). Inconsistency in leadership does not
foster the growth in neither the leader nor the followers. Authentic leadership is
consistent because the leader is aware of themselves and presents their true selves
to everyone all the time. This form of leadership creates a lasting trust among
colleagues and has a positive influence on the follower’s motivation and
performance. Overall, authentic leadership provides strong benefits for both the
leader and the followers.
Lastly, my personal experiences with leadership have led me to agree with
the model of authentic leadership. One clear example is a leadership experience
where I did not lead authentically. This past semester I was promoted to manager at
the Annual Fund Call Center. This promotion came with a whole new set of
responsibilities and a higher level of authority. Throughout the semester I felt I had
learned all the tasks and could perform each of my responsibilities accurately. In my
opinion I had really grown as a leader and was ready for another promotion to lead
manager. At the end of the semester I met with my boss to review my semester.
Prior to the review the employees and the student management team take an
anonymous survey rating each member of the student management team and
writing feedback to help them improve. The results of the survey proved that my
personal opinion did not reflect on my employees. My overall scores went down
Roche 5
from the previous semester in the categories “consistent management” and
“manages in a manner that earns your respect.” About half of the feedback
comments included comments that some nights I was positive and others I was
crabby or rude. Some commented that my manner of supervising seemed cheesy
and inconsistent. Overall, my view of management did not match the way I
presented myself to my employees. For many days I was upset over my results and
could not figure out why my results differed from my personal opinion. As I
reflected on my management style I began to recognize a disconnection between my
personal beliefs and the way I presented myself. My actions represented my
thoughts on how a manager should act. I tried to become a serious, no-nonsense
manager who everybody loved. I never thought about my own strengths and
weaknesses. I never took into account the way I presented myself to my employees.
I never thought about improving my style because I truly believed I was doing my
best. I was not an authentic leader. As I researched authentic leadership, I found that
I was an artificial leader in my work environment. The important component of
being self-aware was not evident at all while I was managing. I have strong moral
values, but I did not make that transparent in my leadership style. In my lack of
authenticity my leadership style was inconsistent, therefore my employees did not
think I managed in a way that earned their respect. As a result, my own self-esteem
was lowered and the environment that I worked in was not wholly trustworthy.
This has taught me the importance of authentic leadership and leads me to agree
with the model of authenticity. I believe I will see a change in my own well-being
Roche 6
and a change in my employees trust and motivation if I strive towards becoming an
authentic leader.
Altogether, the authentic leadership model is a model that is continuously
being improved, but I believe is on the right track to defining the source of great
leadership. As I learned more about the theory and read literature on recent studies
I have become inclined to agree with the leadership model. Also through my own
personal experiences I have a firm belief that this model is accepta
Works Cited
Kinsler, L. (2014). Born to be me… who am I again? The development of authentic
leadership using evidence-based leadership coaching and mindfulness.
International Coaching Psychology Review, 9 (1), 92-96.
Painter, M. (2014). Artificial versus authentic leadership. American Society for
Training & Development, 104-105.
Walumbwa, F., Avolio, B., Gardner, W., Wernsing, T., & Peterson, S. (2008). Authentic
leadership: development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal
of Management, 34 (1), 89-126.
Wang, D., & Hsieh, C. (2013). The effect of authentic leadership on employee trust
and employee engagement. Social behavior and personality, 41 (4), 613-624.