Research Prospectus:
THE EFFECT OF AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP ON
EMPLOYEES’ ATTITUDES, BEHAVIORS, AND
PERFORMANCES
By
Hye Kyoung Kim
OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
Lynna Ausburn, Committee Chair
Belinda Cole
Mary Jo Self
Ed Harris
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1
THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ............................................2
Theoretical framework .............................................................................................2
Social exchange theory ......................................................................................3
Psychological contract theory ............................................................................4
Conceptual framework .............................................................................................5
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM .............................................................................7
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY .........................................................................................8
RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES .......................................................9
DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS .................................................................................11
Conceptual definitions ...........................................................................................11
Operational definitions...........................................................................................12
METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................12
Research design .....................................................................................................12
Population and sample ...........................................................................................13
Instrumentation ......................................................................................................14
Procedures ..............................................................................................................17
Data analysis ..........................................................................................................18
TIMELINE FOR CONDUCTING THE STUDY .......................................................19
LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS OF THE STUDY ........................................19
Limitations .............................................................................................................19
Assumptions...........................................................................................................20
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY.............................................................................20
PLANNED LITERATURE REVIEW .........................................................................21
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................22
APPENDICE................................................................................................................30
iii
THE EFFECT OF AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP ON EMPLOYEES’ ATTITUDES,
BEHAVIORS, AND PERFORMANCE
Introduction
One of the most important components of an organization is human resources, and human
activities are the major driving forces to move organizations forward or to achieve organizational
goals for continuous development. Especially in the knowledge-based society, the importance of
human resources is stressed more than ever because the value of the individual worker as a
source of innovative knowledge and creative ideas in the organization is increasing. In turn,
companies that have competent employees with innovative and creative ideas could be more
successful in the knowledge-focused industry. Therefore, for organizational success,
organizations are making a concerted effort to focus more on employees and employees’
activities.
Employees contribute to the achievement of organizational goals by collaborating with
their organizational members and participating in knowledge creation activities. In order to
maximize the demonstration of employees’ ability and to facilitate employees’ activities,
managerial support should be ensured. A leader who develops organizational visions and guides
employees has a critical effect on employee attitudes and perceptions about the organization
(Mester, Visser, & Roodt, 2003). For example, Bohn and Grafton (2002) suggested that a leader
can encourage employees to have self-confidence through coordination and communication.
That is, a sincere leader can have a positive impact on constructing a cooperative organizational
environment and fostering the employees’ self-efficacy and interpersonal trust, which can lead to
more focus on their duties and performance improvement.
1
The importance of leadership within organizations has received much attention in the
literature, especially in the human resource management area. Among the several types of
leadership (e.g., transformational leadership, transactional leadership, authentic leadership, and
ethical leadership), authentic leadership has recently emerged in the literature to complement
ethical and transformational leadership (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005;
Harter, 2002). Authentic leadership indicates that “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 selfdevelopment” (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008, p. 94). That is,
authentic leaders disclose their personal values and motives and show openness to their followers.
Authentic leadership encourages employees to feel more psychologically empowered to perform
their duties and can have a positive effect on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance,
such as interpersonal trust, work engagement, and organizational citizenship behavior (Avolio,
Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004; Gardner et al., 2005; George, 2003; Ilies,
Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005). For example, Ilies et al. (2005) found that authentic leadership
positively affects followers’ behaviors through providing support for self-determination.
In this regard, having a sincere and supportive leader is the most urgent and required
element for improving employees’ performance and organizational success in the current
business environment by positively changing employees’ attitudes and behaviors.
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
Theoretical Framework
2
The theoretical framework for this study is based upon social exchange theory and
psychological contract theory. These theories provide the theoretical foundation of this study to
develop the research model and to explain the structural relationships among variables.
Social Exchange Theory
Exchange theory has received considerable attention in the social psychological area since
the writing of Homans (1961), Blau (1964), and Gouldner (1960). This theory explains how
social behavior emerges. Specifically, social behavior emerges or terminates as a result of mutual
reinforcement or failure of mutual reinforcement (Homans, 1961), and mutual trust and
reciprocity are the basic requirements for a social exchange to occur (Blau, 1964).
Blau (1964) defined exchange behavior as “voluntary actions of individuals that are
motivated by the returns they are expected to bring and typically do in fact bring from others” (p.
91). In return, A’s social behavior is reinforced by B’s behavior, and A’s behavior reinforces B’s
behavior in return (Homans, 1961).
Social exchange theory can be used to explain the relationship between an employee and
an employer. Even though the relationship between employer and employee is built by the
contract, this relationship is reinforced (or terminated) when employees recognize fair treatment
and supports (or negative treatment or support) from their organizations.
Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison and Sowa (1986) explained how social exchange
emerges in an organizational situation. According to Eisenberger and his colleagues (1986),
employees are going to have greater organizational obligation and intention to repay the
organization when they recognize organizational supports for their well-being and success.
Similarly, organizational supports such as investing in an employee training and development
3
program lead employees to reciprocate through work-related behaviors (Moorman, Blakely, &
Niehoff, 1998).
Organizational supports results in formation of a social exchange between a supportive
leader and employees. For example, Aryee, Budhwar and Chen (2002) asserted that when
employees receive organizational support, such as fair treatment, they will reciprocate with a
positive attitude, behavior, and performance. In other words, their social behavior could be
determined by perceived organizational supports such as supportive leaders and organizational
support for employees’ well-being and development (Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro,
1990; Romzek, 1990).
In the current study, a supportive leader is viewed as organizational support that influences
employees to have obligations to the organization. Employees who feel obligations and
responsibility toward the organization demonstrate involved behaviors and positively changed
attitudes. Employees’ changed behavior and attitude such as increased work engagement and
increased self-efficacy are regarded as a part of the employees’ obligations toward the
organization.
Psychological contract theory
Contracts bind employees and organizations, and affect and regulate both parties’
behaviors. The relationship between organizations and employees is maintained and reinforced
by mutual obligations of the employees and organizations (Rousseau, 1989) even though the
relationship is developed by a contract.
Both parties’ mutual obligations constitute the psychological contract (Rousseau & Parks,
1992). For example, employees’ perception or belief on reciprocal obligations contributes to
shaping the psychological contract between organizations and employees (Levinson, 1963;
4
Rousseau, 1989). Therefore, employees’ behaviors will be specified depending on the perception
or belief. In other words, when employees believe that they owe their organizations for the
organizational support they receive, they try to repay to the organizations.
According to Shore and Tetrick (1994), the psychological contract functions as follows:
First, psychological contracts reduce uncertainty, which is related to uncertainty of employment.
That is, based on the understood agreement on the continued employment, employees have a
sense of security. Second, psychological contracts make employees self-monitor their behaviors,
not requiring managerial control and surveillance. Finally, psychological contracts let employees
recognize their contribution to the development of organizations because the fulfillment of
obligations depends on the employees.
In keeping with this, this study regards that leaders’ sincere support for helping and
guiding employees is a factor for employees to have accountability toward the organization,
which potentially makes a psychological contract between them. In return, the employees who
feel that they have a psychological contract with their leaders will contribute their efforts and
abilities to the organizations with positive attitude and behavior and increased performance to the
organization.
Conceptual Framework
Based on the theoretical discussion, the conceptual framework illustrated in Figure 1 was
developed.
5
Figure 1. Conceptual framework
A leader’s support for employees’ career development and well-being leads the employees
to have perceptions of psychological contract and have obligation toward the organization and
the leader. As a result of this perception and obligation, employees actively participate in their
work-related role with a positive attitude, and try to find solutions to resolve problems even
though they face a demanding situation. They eventually accomplish a high level of performance.
A leader, playing one of the most important roles in the organization, leads, motivates, and
supports employees for organizational success as well as employees’ success. An effective and
supportive leader can motivate employees and facilitate collaboration among the employees and
the leader (Ilies et al., 2005). According to Avolio et al. (2004), authentic leaders stimulate
changes in their employees’ attitude and behaviors such as having a high level of employees’
trust in others and having the intention to help each other as the leaders show high integrity,
honesty, and sincere care. Moreover, authentic leaders help employees to be confident of their
abilities (Khan, 2010), which can lead employees to focus on their duties and to fulfill high
performance. These aforementioned studies emphasize the important influence of leadership on
employee attitudes and behaviors that eventually affect employees’ organizational performance.
6
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of the study is to identify what roles authentic leadership plays in terms of
employees’ behaviors, attitudes, and performance through a review of the literature and analysis
of hypotheses.
Since the 1970s, a considerable number of studies have been conducted on leadership,
including transformational leadership, ethical leadership, transactional leadership, charismatic
leadership, and authentic leadership (e.g., Avolio & Gibbons, 1988; Bass, 1985; Bass & Riggio,
2010; Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater, & Spangler, 2004; Ghafoor, Qureshi, Azzemi, & Hijazi,
2011; Hmieleski, Cole, Baron, 2012). These studies have focused on the critical role of leaders
within an organization for organizational success. For example, Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, and
Chen (2005) focused on transformational leadership and its effect on followers’ performance and
the revealed that supportive leadership has a significant influence on employees. Among these
leadership studies, however, authentic leadership has recently emerged in the literature (Gardner,
Cogliser, Davis, & Dickens, 2011). Few studies have focused on the relationship between
authentic leadership and employees (Khan, 2010).
Since the studies of Bass (1985, 1990) and Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) on authentic
leadership, follow-up studies have been conducted to study the critical role of authentic
leadership and the difference between authentic leadership and other leadership styles (e.g.,
Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Avolio et al., 2004; Champy, 2009; Clapp-Smith, Vogelgesang, &
Avey, 2009; Macik-Fey, Quick, & Cooper, 2009). However, most of the research on authentic
leadership has been conceptual studies (Gardner et al., 2011). In their content analysis study,
Gardner et al. (2011) found that 91 publications focus on authentic leadership and 59 of those to
date are classified as conceptual studies.
7
Recently, several empirical studies on authentic leadership have examined the influence of
authentic leadership on followers’ positive attitude (Hmieleski et al., 2011, Walumbwa, Wang,
Wang, Schaubroeck, & Avolio, 2010), followers’ ethical behavior (Hannah, Avolio, &
Walumbwa, 2011), and performance through positive attitude (Hmieleski et al., 2011); however,
these studies have limitations to explain the dynamic relationships among leaders, employees,
and co-workers. Even though some studies have been conducted to consider the critical effect of
authentic leadership on followers through followers’ attitudinal changes or behavioral changes,
they still remain as fragmentary studies and have limitations to explain the complex
psychological and behavioral character of employees within organizations.
Considering the shortage of studies on authentic leadership, research is needed to verify the
critical impact of authentic leadership on organizational performance improvement through
changes in followers’ attitude and behavior. To this purpose, this study will explore the
significant relations between authentic leadership and employees by reviewing the literature and
analyzing hypotheses statistically. The results of this research may shed light on the human
resource management strategy for improving both employee and organizational performance.
Purpose of the Study
Within an organization, employees as social beings continuously interact with their coworkers, customers, and their leaders for their shared goals. A constructive and healthy
relationship with co-workers and leaders can keep employees focused on their duties, and this
concentration on their duties, in turn, can lead them to accomplish positive and increased
performances, increased job satisfaction, and low turnover intention.
Among organizational members who affect employees’ social lives within the organization,
a leader is one of the most important since an effective leader can motivate employees and
8
facilitate collaboration among employees. Therefore, a better understanding is needed about how
a leader can encourage employees to become more involved in their duties and how a leader can
motivate employees, and what types of leadership can effectively affect employees’ ability and
social relationships within the organization.
Thus, the main purpose of the study is to investigate the critical role of leadership and its
effects on employees’ attitudes and behavior. More specifically, this study will explore the
influence of authentic leaders on employee attitudes (self-efficacy and interpersonal trust),
organizational behavior (work engagement), and role-based performance. To this end, this study
will review the literature and develop research hypotheses based on the literature review. The
hypotheses will be tested using statistical methods.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
This study investigates the following research questions:
1. What are the key roles of leaders in an organization?
2. What are characteristics of authentic leadership?
3. What are the effects of authentic leaders on followers’ behaviors, attitudes, and
performance?
As shown in Figure 2, this study examines five variables: authentic leadership,
occupational self-efficacy, interpersonal trust, work engagement, and role-based performance.
Furthermore, among these variables are structural relationships that will be tested by statistical
methodology to support the assumption of this study. That is, to verify the relationships between
independent variables and dependent variables, I will develop the hypotheses and test them
statistically using methods such as regression analysis and structural equation modeling (SEM).
9
Figure 2. Research model
To achieve my research goal, I propose 10 research hypotheses based on the research
model to test and verify the effect of authentic leaders on employee attitudes, organizational
behaviors, and performance.
H1: Authentic leadership will positively influence employees’ occupational self-efficacy.
H2: Authentic leadership will positively influence employees’ interpersonal trust.
H3: Authentic leadership will positively lead to employees’ work engagement.
H4: Employees’ occupational self-efficacy will positively influence work engagement.
H5: Employees’ interpersonal trust will positively influence work engagement.
H6: The influential relationship between authentic leadership and work engagement will be
mediated by employees’ occupational self-efficacy and interpersonal trust.
H7: Employees’ occupational self-efficacy will positively influence role-based
performance.
H8: Employees’ interpersonal trust will positively influence role-based performance.
H9: Employees’ work engagement will positively influence role-based performance.
10
H10: The influential relationship between employees’ occupational self-efficacy and rolebased performance, and between employees’ interpersonal trust and role-based performance will
be mediated by work engagement.
Definition of Key Terms
Conceptual Definitions
Authentic leadership
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
(Avolio, Luthans, Walumbwa, 2004, p. 4)
Self-efficacy
Beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses
of action required to produce given attainments (Bandura, 1997,
p. 3)
Interpersonal trust
The willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of
another party based on the expectation that the other will
perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective
of the ability to monitor or control that other party (Mayer,
Davis, & Schoorman, 1995, p. 712)
Work engagement
Positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is
characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli,
Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002, p. 72).
Role-based performance
Measuring multidimensional performances such as job, career,
11
innovator, team member, and organization citizenship role
(Welbourne, Johnson, & Erez, 1998)
Operational Definitions
Authentic leadership
An approach to leadership by those who deeply understand the
nature of oneself (self-awareness); show one’s sincere and
authentic self (relational transparency); work with an objective
point of view and listen to opposing opinions before making a
decision (balanced processing); and act according to his/her
internal moral standards and show consistency of belief and
action (internalized moral perspective)
Occupational self-efficacy
Employee’s belief in his or her own ability and competence to
perform his or her tasks in a job
Interpersonal trust
Based on past experience, employee’s evaluation of the
trustworthiness of his or her co-workers
Work engagement
Employee’s positive perception of vigor, dedication, and
absorption to the work
Role-based performance
Employee’s self-rating of role performances as an innovator,
employee, career preparator, team member, and organizational
citizenship role in the organization.
Methodology
Research Design
12
To achieve my research goal, I will use pre-existing instruments that were developed and
validated by researchers (See Appendix A), and which are also supported by many follow-up
studies. Using pre-existing research questionnaires has several advantages (Hyman, Lamb, &
Bulmer, 2006). First, researchers are confident about the validity and credibility of the
instruments, since the questionnaires have already been validated by the questionnaire
developers. Second, the follow-up researchers could save time and money needed to develop
new questionnaires.
All scales were initially developed in English, and to apply the scale in Korean business
contexts, Brislin, Lonner, and Thorndike’s (1973) translation-back translation procedure will be
used to ensure similarity between the original English and translated Korean versions of each
item. I will invite two Korean professors in the department of human resources at Korean
universities, one bilingual professor in the US, and one bilingual doctoral student majoring in
human resources to perform the following procedures. First, the bilingual professor and the
bilingual doctoral student will translate the English version of the instruments into the Korean
version. The translated instruments will be reviewed by two Korean professors; then, they will
back-translate it into English. The translated Korean version of the instrument and the backtranslated English version of the instrument will be finally reviewed by the bilingual professor
and the bilingual doctoral student.
Population and Sample
I will use the survey method to collect data. The major subject of the study is employees
who are working in one of the industrial complexes in Korea. I will not limit the selection of
research participants, as any employees who are working within organizations through
interaction and communication with their co-workers could be potential participants of the
13
survey. The potential participants of the survey will be asked to respond to each of the questions
that measure their perceptions of the items (authentic leadership, occupational self-efficacy,
interpersonal trust, work engagement, and role-based performance).
The industrial complex is a specific area constructed by the government to facilitate local
economy and to support company development, especially small-medium sized companies.
There are various types of companies in this industrial complex in terms of company size and
type of business. Especially, conglomerates and small-medium sized companies build a strong
relationship for their success in this industrial complex. I expect that the dataset collected from
this area will be representative of the population in terms of company size and type of business,
and the result might be applicable to other similar industrial areas.
Instrumentation
Table 1 shows the original source of instruments and the number of items for five variables
(authentic leadership, occupational self-efficacy, interpersonal trust, work engagement, and rolebased performance). All constructs will be measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging
from ‘strongly disagree (1)’ to ‘strongly agree (5)’. All instruments are open to researchers,
except role-based performance. The developers of the questionnaires of role-based performance
require permission. I have already obtained permission from the authors via email.
Table 1
The original source of questionnaires and the number of items for each variable
Variables
Authentic leadership
Occupational self-efficacy
Interpersonal trust
Source
Neider & Schrieshein (2011)
Rigotti, Schyns, & Mohr (2008)
Cook & Wall (1980)
14
Items
14
6
6
Work engagement
Role-based performance
Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova (2006)
Welbourne, Johnson, & Erez (1998)
9
20
First of all, to measure authentic leadership, the Authentic Leadership Inventory (ALI),
which was recently developed and validated by Neider and Schrieshein (2011), will be used.
Based on the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ), which was developed by Walumbwa,
Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, and Peterson (2008), the ALI was developed to supplement the
limitations of the ALQ (such as copyright issues, the issues of construct validity and
confirmatory factor analysis). The ALI contains 14 items that can be categorized into four
subfactors: self-awareness (S), relational transparency (R), balanced processing (B), and
internalized moral perspective (M). Self-awareness indicates leaders’ understanding of his/her
strengths and weaknesses, and how they impact their followers (Walumbwa et al., 2008).
Relational transparency means that through expressing true thoughts and openly sharing
information, followers recognize their leaders’ authenticity, while balanced processing is related
to leaders’ objective decision-making process (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Lastly, the internalized
moral perspective is related to leaders’ behaviors that are consistent with their internalized value
(Walumbwa et al., 2008). The following is a sample item: “My leader clearly states what he/she
means.”
Second, a short version of the occupational self-efficacy scale (Rigotti, Schyns, & Mohr,
2008), which was originally developed by Schyns and von Collani (2002), will be used to
measure employees’ occupational self-efficacy. The original instrument consists of 20 items,
which include general self-efficacy, self-esteem, neuroticism, and internal control beliefs. Later,
Schyns and von Collani (2002) introduced a short version of the scale, consisting of eight items,
which was proven to be a reliable and valid measure in a German sample. Later, Rigotti et al.
15
(2008) selected six among the eight items. High values indicate a high level of self-efficacy.
Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha was .721, Pati & Kumar [2010]) and construct validity of
measurement are well supported by follow-up research studies (e.g., Pati & Kumar; 2010;
Schaufeli & Salanova; 2008). A sample item is “I can remain calm when facing difficulties in
my job because I can rely on my abilities.”
Third, the Interpersonal Trust at Work Scale (ITWC), which was developed by Cook and
Wall (1980), will be used to measure interpersonal trust in the workplace. This scale is
comprised of three items for trust in peers and three items for trust in management. Cook and
Wall (1980) classified trust into two different dimensions: (1) faith in the trustworthy intentions
of others, and (1) confidence in the ability of others. In my study, I will consider only the aspect
of employees’ trust in others’ trustworthy intention to help their co-workers. Since Cook and
Wall (1980) developed the scale, many other researchers have used it for their follow-up studies
and have supported the reliability and validity of the measures (e.g., Mooradian, Renzi, &
Matzler, 2006; den Hartog, Chippers, & Koopman, 2002). A sample item is as follows: “I can
rely on my co-workers to help me if necessary.”
Fourth, the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale-9 (UWES-9), developed by Schaufeli,
Bakker, and Salanova (2006), will be employed to measure work engagement. This instrument is
composed of three factors (vigor, dedication, and absorption). Vigor is related to one’s high
level of energy and willingness to dedicate efforts to their task. Dedication is one’s enthusiasm
and inspiration. Absorption is defined as one’s full concentration on his or her work. This scale
was proven to be a valid measure by follow-up research (e.g., Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006; Storm
& Rothmann, 2003; Yi-Wen & Yi-Qun, 2005). A sample item is “At my work, I feel bursting
with energy.”
16
Lastly, to measure role-based performance, the Role-based Performance Scale (RBPS),
developed and validated by Welbourne, Jonson, and Erez (1998), will be used. This scale was
designed to measure multidimensional aspects of employees’ performances that include job and
non-job dimensions. This scale is composed of 20 items classified into 5 sub-categories: job,
career, innovator, team member, and organization citizenship behavior. According to Welbourne
et al. (1998), Cronbach’s alpha, which indicates internal consistency ranging from .86 to .96 and
measurement construct validity is also satisfied. The following is a sample item: “Working as
part of a team or work group.”
Procedures
I will use on-line survey tools to collect data. To recruit participants for the survey, I will
contact the Korea Industrial Complex Corporation to obtain contact information of workers.
Upon receiving permission from the Korea Industrial Complex Corp, employees’ contact
information (only e-mail addresses) will be used for selecting potential survey participants. I will
invite individual workers to participate in the survey via an invitation email. Consent information
will be attached to the invitation email. More specifically, I will first email potential participants
to request their participation in the survey with consent information and on-line survey directory
attached. If they agree to participate in the survey, they can directly access the on-line survey
site. On the first page, I will explain the overall procedure of the survey, and upon their
agreement, they can begin the survey; otherwise, they can just leave the survey webpage. After
sending the first email to invite participants, the second invitation letter will be sent to encourage
them to participate in the survey. The data collection will last about three months.
Regarding the participants’ response options, they are able to skip any items when they do
not want to provide any opinions on those items. No individual identification-related questions
17
are included in the survey items; no one (even the researchers) can identify individual
identification information. The responses are returned to the Survey Monkey on-line system
automatically.
Data Analysis
The data, which is collected by random sampling, will be analyzed through statistical data
analysis. This study will employ two data analysis strategies. First, before testing the hypotheses,
it is important to assure credibility and reliability of all constructs. I will measure the credibility
and reliability of the construct of each variable using Cronbach-α test and confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA). Second, two statistical programs will be used to test the hypotheses. Structural
equation modeling (SEM) will be performed to test the hypothesized structural model using
Lisrel 8.8 (Jӧreskog & Sӧrbom, 2001) and regression analysis will be performed to test the
mediating effects using SAS 13. Based on the results of the data analysis, I will determine
whether to accept the hypotheses.
Table 2
Data Analysis Plan
Analysis Strategy
Descriptive statistics
-Means
-Standard deviations
-MahalanobisD2
-Correlation of variables
Reliability & validity
-Construct validity
-Reliability of measures
Hypothesis testing
-H1 ̴ H5, H7 ̴ H8
-H6, H9 ̴ H10
-Structural equation modeling (SEM)
-Regression analysis
18
Timeline for Conducting the Study
As shown in Table 3, first, I will start preparing for collecting data and reviewing literature.
For the data collection, I will apply for IRB approval, and develop the online survey. Data
collection is expected to be completed by November 2013, and data analysis should be
completed one month later. It is estimated that a draft of the dissertation will be completed by
February 2014. The completion date for the dissertation is the spring of 2014, with an estimated
graduation date of May 2014.
Table 3
Timeline for the Dissertation
Date
Goal
Strategy
-Reviewing literature results and writing
-Getting IRB approval & starting data
collection
-Analyzing the credibility and reliability
of instruments
-Testing hypotheses
~11/30/2013
Reviewing literature
Collecting data
~12/30/2013
Analyzing
~2/28/2014
Completing a rough draft
-Writing the test results of hypotheses
-Finishing a rough draft
~4/30/2014
Finalizing
-Presenting the dissertation
Limitations and Assumptions of the Study
Limitations
This study has potential limitations even though the research model and procedures are
well designed based on the theoretical foundation and literature review.
First of all, to measure employee performance, this study will use a role-based performance
scale that can measure employees’ multi-dimensional roles such as an innovator and a team
19
member within the organization. Even though this instrument measures employees’
multifunctional roles, this measurement can be criticized in terms of objectivity since it will be
measured based on employees’ subjective performance ratings. That is, every employee will
evaluate his/her performances according to their own perception.
In addition, regarding data collection, the major target population consists of those who
work in one specific area of S. Korea. This issue causes a low possibility of generalizability of
the result. To complement this limitation, future research needs to be conducted in different
countries and organizational situations.
Assumptions
The following assumptions should be assured for this study:
1. Survey participants understand all terms which will be used in the survey.
2. Survey participants answer all questions sincerely.
Significance of the Study
The interest in authentic leadership has been growing, but related studies are insufficient
compared to studies on other types of leadership. In fact, empirical studies on authentic
leadership that focus on its effect on followers’ attitudes and organizational behaviors are
especially lacking in the literature (Gardner et al., 2011).
The current study has several significant values, both scholarly and practically. In terms of
scholastic value, this study will contribute to the literature on authentic leadership by providing
empirical evidence of the importance of authentic leaders and their relationship to employee
performance. That is, this study contributes to the theoretical development of authentic
leadership.
In terms of practical values, this study will show why an authentic leader is important
20
within an organization for organizational development and employees’ success. More
specifically, this study will demonstrate that authentic leaders can be an important force in
promoting employees’ positive attitude and behaviors that ultimately lead to organizational
performance improvement. This study will also show what characteristics of leaders should be
considered when a company chooses leaders. Moreover, this study will show the need for
authentic leadership development programs for current leaders and potential leaders.
Planned Literature Review
The purpose of this study is to verify the effect of authentic leadership on employees’
attitudes, behaviors, and performance. To understand each variable and its relationships among
other variables, the literatures about authentic leadership, interpersonal trust, employees’ selfefficacy, work engagement, and role-based performance will be reviewed.
21
References
Alok, K. & Israel, D. (2012). Authentic leadership & work engagement. The Indian Journal of
Industrial Relations, 47(3), 498–510.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between
organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23, 267–285.
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of
positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315–338.
Avolio, B. J., & Gibbons, T. C. (1988). Developing transformational leaders: A life span
approach. In J. A. Conger, & R. N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: The elusive
factor in organizational effectiveness (pp. 276–308). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking
the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders’ impact follower attitudes and
behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801–823. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.03
Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2004). Authentic leadership: Theory-building for
veritable sustained performance. Working Paper, Gallup Leadership Institute, University
of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Process, 50, 248–287.
22
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: WH Freeman and
Company.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Handbook of leadership. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational
leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181−217.
Bass, B., & Riggio, R. E. (2010).The transformational model of leadership. In G. R. Hickman
(Ed.), Leading organizations: Perspectives for a new era (2nd ed., pp. 76–86). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and Power. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Bohn, J. G., & Grafton, D. (2002). The Relationship of Perceived Leadership Behaviors to
Organizational Efficacy. Journal of leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(2), 65–80.
Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, R. M. (1973). Cross-cultural research methods.
New York: Wiley.
Champy, J. (2009). Authentic leadership. Leader to Leader, 54, 39–44.
Clapp-Smith, R., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Avey, J. B. (2009). Authentic leadership analysis.
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 15, 227–240.
Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment
and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39–52.
den Hartog, D. N., Shippers, M. C., & Koopman, P. L. (2002). The impact of leadership behavior
on trust in management and co-workers. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 28(4), 29–
34.
23
Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., & Spangler, W. D. (2004). Transformational
leadership and team performance. Journal of Organizational Change, 17(2), 177–193.
doi: 10.1108/09534810410530601
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and
employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,
51–59.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational
support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507.
Feltz, D. L. (1982). Path analysis of the causal elements m Bandura's theory of self-efficacy and
an anxiety-based model of avoidance behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 42, 764–781
Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic leadership: A
review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1120–
1145.
Gardner, W.L., Avolio, B.J., Luthans, F., May, D.R., & Walumbwa, F.O. (2005). Can you see
the real me? A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development.
Leadership Quarterly, 16, 434–372.
George, B. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets of creating lasting value. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ghafoor, A., Qureshi, T. M., Azeemi, H. R., & Hijazi, T. (2011). Mediating role of creative selfefficacy. African Journal of Business Management, 5, 11093–11103. doi:
10.5897/AJBM11.876
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American
Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178.
24
Hallberg, U., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). “Same same” but different: Can work engagement be
discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment? European Journal
of Psychology, 11, 119–127. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040.11.2.119
Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2011). Relationship between authentic
leadership, moral courage, and ethical and pro-social behaviors. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 24(4), 555–578.
Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder, & S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive
psychology (pp. 382–394). Oxford, UK7 Oxford University Press.
Hmieleski, K. M., Cole, M. S., & Baron, R. A. (2012). Shared authentic leadership and new
venture performance. Journal of Management, Published online early, DOI:
10.1177/0149206311415419
Homans, G. (1961). Social Behavior. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Hyman, L., Lamb, J., & Bulmer, M. (2006). The use of pre-existing survey questions:
Implications for data quality. In: The conferences on European conference on Quality in
Survey Statistics.
Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic wellbeing: Understanding leader-follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 373–394.
Judge, T. A., Jackson, C. L., Shaw, J. C., Scott, B. A., & Rich, B. L. (2007). Self-efficacy and
work-related performance: The integral role of individual differences. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92(1), 107–127. Doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.107
Jӧreskog, K., & Sӧrbom, D. (2001). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide (2nd ed). Lincolnwood,
IL: Scientific Software International.
Khan, S. N. (2010). Impact of authentic leaders on organization performance. International
Journal of Business and Management, 5(2), 167–172.
25
Levinson, H. (1963). Men, management and mental health. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of self-efficacy, goals, and task
strategies on task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2), 241–251.
Macik-Frey, M., Quick, J. C., & Cooper, C. L. (2009). Authentic leadership as a pathway to
positive health. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 453–458.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational
trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.
Mester, C., Visser, D., & Roodt, G. (2003). Leadership style and its relation to employee
attitudes and behavior. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 29(2), 72–82.
Mooradian, T., Renzi, B., & Matzler, K. (2006). Who trusts? Personality, trust and knowledge
sharing. Management Learning, 37(4), 523–540. doi: 10.1177/1350507606073424
Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived organizational support
mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship
behavior?, Academy of Management Journal, 41(3), 351–357.
Neider, L. L, & Schriesheim, C. A. (2011). The authentic leadership inventory (ALI):
Development and empirical tests. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1146–1164. doi:
10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.008
Pati, S. P., & Kumar, P. (2010). Employee engagement: Role of self-efficacy, organizational
support & supervisor support. The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(1), 126–
137.
Randhawa, G. (2004). Self-efficacy and work performance: An empirical study. Indian Journal
of Industrial Relations, 39(3), 336–346.
26
Rigotti, T., Schyns, B., & Mohr, G. (2008). A short version of the occupational self-efficacy
scale: Structural and construct validity across five countries. Journal of Career
Assessment, 16(2), 238–55.
Romzek, B. (1990). Employee investment and commitment: The ties that bind. Public
Administration Review, 50, 374–82.
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121–139.
Rousseau, D. M., & Parks, J. (1992). The contracts of individuals and organizations. In L. L.
Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 15, 1–47,
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2008). Enhancing work engagement through the management
of human resources. In K. Näswall, J. Hellgren, & M. Sverke (Eds.), The individual in the
changing working life (pp. 380−402). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. G., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement
with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 66, 701–716. doi: 10.1177/0013164405282471
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement
of burnout and engagement: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92.
Schyns, B., & von Collani, G. (2002). A new occupational self-efficacy scale and its relation to
personality constructs and organizational variables. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 11, 219–241.
27
Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1994). The psychological contracts as an explanatory framework
in the employment relationship. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1, 92–109, Chichester: JohnWiley & Sons Ltd.
Storm, K., & Rothman, I. (2003). A psychometric analysis of the Utrecht Work Engagement
Scale in the South African police service. South African Journal of Industrial
Psychology, 29(4), 62–70.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008).
Authentic Leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of
Management, 34(1), 89–126.
Walumbwa, F. O., Wang, P., Wang, H., Schaubroeck, J., & Avolio, B. J. (2010). Psychological
Processes Linking Authentic Leadership to Follower Behaviors. Leadership Quarterly,
21(5), 901-914.
Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen Z. X. (2005). Leader-member
exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and
followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of
Management, 48(3), 420–432.
Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. & Erez, A. (1998). The role-based performance scale: Validity
analysis of a theory-based measure of performance. Academy of Management Journal,
41(5), 540–555.
Yi-Wen, Z., & Yi-Qun, C. (2005). The Chinese version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale:
An examination of reliability and validity. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 13,
268–270.
28
Zamahani, M., Ghorbani, V., & Rezaei, F. (2011). Impact of authentic leadership and
psychological capital on followers’ trust and performance. Australian Journal of Basic
and Applied Sciences, 5(1), 658–667.
29
Appendix A. Questionnaires
PART 1 Human Relations within workplace
Occupational self-efficacy
1
2
3
4
5
6
I can remain calm when facing difficulties in
my job because I can rely on my abilities
When I am confronted with a problem in my
job, I can usually find several solutions
Whatever comes my way in my job, I can
usually handle it.
My past experiences in my job have prepared
me well for my occupational future
I meet the goals that I set for myself in my job
I feel prepared for most of the demands in my
job
Authentic leadership
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
My leader clearly states what he/she means
My leader shows consistency between his/her
beliefs and actions
My leader asks for ideas that challenge his/her
core beliefs
My leader describes accurately the way that
others view his/her abilities
My leader uses his/her core beliefs to make
decisions
My leader carefully listens to alternative
perspectives before reaching a conclusion
My leader shows that he/she understands
his/her strengths and weaknesses
My leader openly shares information with
others
My leader resists pressures on him/her to do
things contrary to his/her beliefs
My leader objectively analyzes relevant data
before making a decision
My leader is clearly aware of the impact he/she
has on others
My leader expresses his/her ideas and thoughts
clearly to others
My leader is guided in his/her actions by
internal moral standards
30
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
agree
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
agree
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
My leader encourages others to voice opposing
points of view
①
①
③
④
⑤
Trust in peers and management
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
agree
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
If I got into difficulties at work, I know my
colleagues would try and help me out
I can trust the people I work with to lend me a
hand if I needed it
Most of my colleagues can be relied upon to do
as they say they will do
Management at my firm is sincere in its
attempts to meet the employees’ point of view
I feel quite confident that the firm will always
try to treat me fairly
Our management would be quite prepared to
gain advantage by deceiving the employee (R )
PART 2 Organizational Behaviors
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
agree
1 At my work, I feel bursting with energy
①
①
③
④
⑤
2 At my job, I feel strong and vigorous
①
①
③
④
⑤
3 I am enthusiastic about my job
①
①
③
④
⑤
4 My job inspires me
When I get up in the morning, I feel like going
5
to work
6 I feel happy when I am working intensely
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
7 I am proud of the work that I do
①
①
③
④
⑤
8 I am immersed in my work
①
①
③
④
⑤
9 I get carried away when I am working
①
①
③
④
⑤
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
agree
1 Quantity of work output.
①
①
③
④
⑤
2 Quality of work output.
①
①
③
④
⑤
Work engagement
PART 3 Performances
Role-based performance
31
3 Accuracy of work.
Customer service provided (internal & external
4
customers).
5 Coming up with new ideas.
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
6 Working to implement new ideas.
①
①
③
④
⑤
7 Finding improved ways to do things.
①
①
③
④
⑤
8 Creating better processes and routines.
①
①
③
④
⑤
9 Making progress in his/her career.
①
①
③
④
⑤
10 Seeking out career opportunities.
①
①
③
④
⑤
11 Obtaining career goals.
①
①
③
④
⑤
12 Developing skills needed in future career.
①
①
③
④
⑤
13 Working as part of a team or group.
Seeking information from others in his/her work
14
group.
15 Making sure that his/her work group succeeds.
Responding to the needs of others in his/her
16
work group.
Doing things that help others when it’s not part
17
of the job.
18 Working for the overall good of my company.
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
19 Doing things that promote my company.
Helping out so that my company is a good place
20
to be.
①
①
③
④
⑤
①
①
③
④
⑤
PART 4 General Demographic Questions
1. Gender
① Male ② Female
2. Age
① Under 20 years old ② 20∼29 ③ 30∼39
④ 40∼49 ⑤ 50∼59 ⑥ 60 and over
32
3. Educational level
① High school graduate ② Associate degree ③ Bachelor degree
④ Master degree ⑤ Ph. D/Ed. D ⑥ other degree
4. Job duration:
① Less than 1 year
② More than 1 but less than 3 years
③ More than 3 but less than 5 years
④ More than 5 but less than 10 years
⑤ More than 10 but less than 20 years ⑥ More than 20 years
5. Classification of corporation?
① Small-medium sized enterprise ② Large-sized enterprise or conglomerate
6. Unit of Business
① Electrotechnics and Electronics ② Steel ③ Mechanical ④ Textile
⑤ Transportation ⑥ Finance ⑦ Others
33