DEVELOPING A NEW MEASURE OF AUTHENTIC

LEADERSHIP
Dimovski Vlado, UL EF, vlado.dimovski@ef.uni-lj.si
Ferjan Marko, UM FOV, marko.ferjan@fov.uni-mb.si
Penger Sandra, UL EF, sandra.penger@uni-lj.si
Marič Miha, UM FOV, miha.maric@fov.uni-mb.si
Černe Matej, COBIK, matej.cerne@cobik.si

Abstract

The paper identifies authentic leadership (AL) as the latest evolutionary stage in leadership
development focusing on the development of a new measure of AL construct. AL has gained
importance throughout the last decade in both, academic community as well as among
practitioners in business environment. The most widely recognized research instrument is the
ALQ developed by Avolio, Gardner and Walumba in 2007, addressing the following
variables: self-awareness, transparency, ethical/moral, and balanced processing. The results
of our exploratory factor analysis demonstrate three theoretically acknowledged dimensions
of AL (self-awareness, relational transparency, and balanced processing). Through the
confirmatory factor analysis using LISREL 8.80 the validation of the research instrument was
performed. The results indicate that the new measure of AL leadership contributes to further
research of AL and the development of this research filed, incorporating also the positive
psychological dimension.

Key words: authentic leadership, positive psychology in leadership, factory analysis, LISREL.

Introduction

There is a growing interest nowadays for authentic leadership in business practice as well as
in academic literature. Avolio and Gardner's (2005) article on authentic leadership
development is constantly ranked among the 25 ScienceDirect‟s »hottest articles« in the
subject area of business, management and accounting, indicating the interest and importance
of this research area within academia. Also, scientific articles on authentic leadership
produced in less than a decade can be counted by the dozen. The reason for the interest of
practitioners and academics in authentic leadership is the authentic leaders' impact that
extends beyond first-line management, that is, to all the members of the organization.
Authentic leadership is, according to the researchers of positive organizational behavior
(Avolio, Gardner, 2005; Gardner, Fischer, Hunt, 2009; Penger, 2006), the success factor of
today's progressive organizations. Because authentic leaders are taking into account not only
organizational but also social problems, they contribute to the society at large.

We focus on authentic leadership, a recently emerging research field (Gardner, Avolio,

Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005; George, 2003; Luthans & Avolio, 2003; Walumbwa,
Wang, Wang, Schaubroeck, & Avolio, 2010). The construct of authenticity was researched
already by ancient Greek philosophers as »know thy-self«, and »thy true self«. Authentic
leadership began to develop after the year 2004. Authentic leaders must identify the strengths
of their followers and help them with their development and integration towards a common
goal, purpose, vision and identity of the organization.
Authentic leadership focuses on positive achievements rather than emphasizing flaws (Jensen
& Luthans, 2006; Peterson & Luthans, 2003), and promotes employee trust, which results in
higher emotional safety and unconventional idea proposition (Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa,
Luthans, & May, 2004).

Authentic leadership is about enhancing and developing the employees‟ values, motives,
emotions, and goals and using them for the benefit of the organization (Gardner et al., 2005).
Finally, Walumbwa et al (2008) have demonstrated discriminant validity of authentic
leadership from other leadership styles. Nonetheless, it is important to note how exactly
authentic leadership differs from other types of leadership.

Authentic leadership is the root concept and a foundation for any positive forms of leadership
(Ilies et al., 2005; May et al., 2003). Authentic people are in the centre of authentic leadership
that can be authentic transformational, transactional, or of any third type (Price, 2003; Shamir
& Eilam, 2005). It represents the extent to which managers are aware of and also exhibit a
pattern of openness and clarity in their behavior in relations toward others by sharing
information, accepting others‟ inputs, and reveal their own values, motives, emotions, and
goals, in a way that enables the followers to assess their behavior (Walumbwa et al., 2010). In
recent years, there have been quite a few empirical studies (in addition to theoretical
conceptualizations) that examine the positive relationship between authentic leadership and
numerous employee attitudes and behaviors (e.g. Jensen & Luthans, 2006; Walumbwa et al.,
2008; Walumbwa et al., 2010).

We propose and empirically test a model examining the supervisor authentic leadership. We
use data from 2176 employees in Slovenia and apply structural equation modeling to present
authentic leadership. We discuss the implications of these findings for practice and theory.

1 Theoretical model and hypotheses

1.1 Authenticity
The dictionaries reveal to us that authenticity is a characteristic, or a quality to be genuine or
unspoiled. More broadly, authenticity reflects the unobstructed operation of one‟s true, or
core, self in one‟s daily enterprise (Kernis, 2003: 13). It means to be faithful to the original,
source, commitment, truthfulness, and purpose. Authenticity contrasts imitation or
counterfeit. Despite our inner feeling of knowing when something or someone is authentic,
various dictionary definitions of authenticity offer a lot of vagueness. The Cambridge
dictionary defines authentic as real, true, or as precisely that, what people say it is. Synonyms
for authenticity are often genuineness, bona fide (in good faith and with a sincere purpose),
accuracy, legitimacy and correctness.

Although there is no single definition of authenticity, we know what it means when we detect
authenticity, be it in a form of person, food, culture, politics, or a story. Authenticity is reality
and means to identify the reality of a person's existence, the reality of the place, food,
community, or stories. When we name something real today, we demand it to be rooted in
human ethics, the nature, geography – it has to originate from somewhere clearly defined and
recognized. It has to be fair and appreciated for its simplicity. It has to be pure and noble,
sound as a mountain stream. Authentic is the word that carries the meaning and depth of a
person or object. Authenticity means that it contains a feature that is profound, contrary to
superficial. Authenticity is not a conservative force that resides in a vanishing world. It is a
force that looks forward, a force that attempts to adapt the traditional wisdom in favor of
modern life. Authenticity is a process, a progressive revolution (Dimovski et al, 2011).

The construct of authenticity was dealt with already by the ancient Greek philosophers as
know thy-self, and thy true self (Penger, 2006). The essence of authenticity is to know
yourself, to accept and maintain ourselves such as we are. Better than to accept the
authenticity as a construct is to realize that the authenticity is an element of the continuum,
meaning that the more people, including employees, maintain their real values, identities, and
emotions, the more authentic they become (Cooper, Scandura, Schriesheim, 2005). The
concept of authenticity, discussed in this article, relates to the possession of own personal
experiences – either thoughts, feelings, needs, requirements, desires, preferences, or beliefs.
These are the processes by which we know ourselves, and which indicate that someone is
acting in accordance with his real self, expresses himself in ways that are consistent with his
inner thoughts and feelings, and thus manifesting his own identity (Harter, 2002). In our view,
authenticity reflects one‟s general tendencies to view oneself within one‟s social environment
and to conduct one‟s life according to one‟s deeply held values. At more specific levels,
authenticity is manifested in concrete aspects of one‟s behavior and existence, such as in
leading others.

1.2 Authentic leadership

Authenticity in leadership describes leaders with great capacity to effectively process
information about themselves (their values, beliefs, goals, and feelings), an ability to adjust
their behavior in leadership in accordance with their own self, a clear personal identity, and an
ability to harmonize their preferences with the demands of society (Chan, Hannah, &
Gardner, 2005). To be authentic means to be natural, original, and not a copy (Shamir &
Eilam, 2005). Authenticity includes possessing personal experiences (values, thoughts,
feelings, beliefs) as well as acting in accordance with one's own real self (Gardner et al.,
2005).

The generally accepted framework of authentic leadership, conceptualized by Walumbwa et

al. (2008), proposes four dimensions of authentic leadership: self-awareness, balanced
processing, relational transparency, and internalized moral perspective. Self-awareness refers
to the extent to which the managers know and understand their own true self (Walumbwa et
al., 2010). During the process of self-awareness, the authentic leaders observe and analyze
their own mental state through introspection. Internal connection with one‟s true self is
achieved by an individual delving into his own personality by recalling the important events
in his life, and his reactions and emotions of that time (Ladkin & Taylor, 2010). They learn
about and accept their fundamental values, feelings, identity, and motives or goals (Avolio &
Gardner, 2005).

Balanced processing is about unbiased analysis of all relevant information and taking into
account others‟ opinion and input before making a decision (Walumbwa et al., 2010).
Relational transparency involves openly sharing information and expressing true thoughts and
emotions in relations to others. Thus, authenticity reflects leaders‟ ability of harmonizing
responsibility to themselves, their followers and the wider public, in order to achieve
collaboration within, and outside of, an organization (Novicevic, Harvey, Ronald, & Brown-
Radford, 2006).
Finally, internalized moral perspective refers to the extent to which the manager‟s behaviors
are guided by internal moral standards and values, rather than by external pressures (Gardner
et al., 2005). Individuals must manage their own behavior so that it matches with moral
standards (May et al., 2003; Novicevic et al., 2006). Leadership is moral only, if an
individual‟s internalized values are moral (George, 2007), or, if they are perceived as such by
others (Sparrowe, 2005). It is, on one hand, a harmony of leaders‟ behavior with their own
values, and on the other hand, a harmony of leaders‟ behavior with ethical rules of the society.
To earn respect of the followers and earn the possibility to affect their actions, the leader
must, besides authenticity, also demonstrate integrity; thus, possess personal values
harmonized with the ethical code (Duignan & Bhindi, 1997). A leader must consistently
reflect integrity, to be perceived as authentic (Cooper, Scandura, & Schriesheim, 2005).

The theory of positive psychology (e.g. Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), which has been
tightly connected to authentic leadership from the beginning of the research on this field (e.g.
Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Luthans & Avolio, 2003), has followed an interesting notion: the
more developed a strength is, the better people are and the better results they achieve
(Schwartz & Sharpe, 2006). Authentic leadership research recognized that a lack of
managers‟ authenticity can harm employee outcomes, such as job satisfaction or work
engagement (e.g. Walumbwa et al., 2008; Walumbwa et al., 2010).

Through the process of self-awareness, an individual‟s higher levels of self-confidence

(Barron & Harrington, 1981) is built. This results in increasingly salient independency
(Patterson, 1999), which is inevitably perceived by the employees. Authentic leaders are very
aware of their own self; their motives, goals, emotions, and values. They understand what
drives them and what they need to achieve to fulfill their higher goals. This may result in
them not being as concerned with providing support for their subordinates‟ experimentation,
but more with their own development (Avolio & Locke, 2002). Leaders should control and
monitor employee work (Amabile et al., 2004; Krause, 2004; Oldham & Cummings, 1996),
but also permit the degree of participation and involvement (Amabile et al., 2004).

Important implications of the practice of Authentic Leadership, as George (2003) states it, can
be divided in three levels: (1) authentic leaders build authentic companies (organizational
level implications), (2) authentic companies compete more effectively in the market
(economy level implications), and (3) authentic leaders look beyond the bottom line (societal
and environmental level implications).

2 Methods

2.1 Sample and procedures

Empirical data that were used for examining the supervisors‟ authentic leadership were
collected from 2176 people in Slovenia. We used convenience sampling, with a preliminary
question to target only employed people with a supervisor; a person they receive instructions
from and report to. Therefore, we got the responses only from the employees, the
subordinates, employed in companies in Slovenia in various industries. A translation-back
translation procedure was used to translate the questionnaire items from English to Slovenian
and back to English. We present the demographic information of survey respondents in Table
1.
Table 1 Demographics of Survey Respondents
 Number of respondents N=2176
Age
Up to 25 years 9.6%
26-35 years 31.1%
36-45 years 30.6%
46-55 years 22.1%
Over 56 years 6.6%
Gender
Male 46.1%
Female 53.9%
Work tenure
Up to 5 years 19.0%
6-15 years 38.9%
16-25 years 24.5%
26-35 years 15.9%
Over 36 years 1.7%

2.2 Measures
As data regarding supervisors‟ authentic leadership were gathered from the employees,
problems with common method bias are inevitable. To avoid them as much as possible, we
used following approaches. First, after the data collection, we conducted Harman's one-factor
test to address the common method variance issue. If common method variance was a serious
problem in the study, we would expect a single factor to emerge from a factor analysis or one
general factor to account for most of the covariance in the independent and dependent
variables (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). The results of the factor analysis
demonstrated that no general factor was apparent in the unrotated factor structure, with the
first factor accounting for only 27.3% of the variance. Second, the items used in our study are
part of a large-scale questionnaire. Third, we reverse-coded some items in the questionnaire.
Therefore, the respondents would likely not have been able to guess the purpose of the study
and force their answers to be consistent.

Supervisors’ authentic leadership Authentic leadership construct is measured with a

questionnaire we have developed and adapted from previously used research instruments
based on a comprehensive literature review. The measurement instrument we have developed
is similar to the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ), validated by Walumbwa et al.
(2008). They have provided validation for their research instrument and have also
distinguished it from research instruments measuring other what they call „positive forms‟ of
leadership. We follow their research framework and measure four dimensions of authentic
leadership (self-awareness, relational transparency, balanced processing, and internalized
moral perspective), but have adapted some of the questions based on the literature review and
conceptualization. Specifically, we proceed to include positive psychological capital in the
measure as an integral part of the self-awareness dimension (Gardner et al., 2005).

Walumbwa et al. (2008) do see positive psychological capital as fostering the development of
authentic leadership, yet they do not posit it as an inherent component of the construct.
However, this is in contrast with previous definitions of authentic leadership (e.g. Gardner et
al., 2005; Ilies et al., 2005; Luthans & Avolio, 2003) that do imply authentic leadership to
involve high levels of positive psychological capacities. Furthermore, the very root of
authentic leadership construct is in positive psychology; it has evolved from positive
organizational behavior movement (Gardner et al., 2005; Luthans & Avolio, 2003). We feel
that the researchers should derive from the beginnings of authentic leadership and follow the
basic model (Gardner et al., 2005) when conducting empirical research. Hence we include
positive psychological capital as an integral part of authentic leadership measure.

There is a heated debate in authentic leadership research and in leadership research in general
regarding the self-others ratings and the bias connected to that (Atwater & Yammarino, 1992;
Bass & Yammarino, 1991). Many researchers assume that authenticity and consequently
authentic leadership do not involve others‟ perception of a leader, but only an individual's
own actions in accordance with an individual‟s true nature (George, Sims, McLean, & Mayer,
2007; George, 2007; Shamir & Eilam, 2005). Thus, authenticity can be self-ascribed.

Sparrowe (2005) opposes this and exposes the need to assess a leader‟s authenticity from
multiple sources. Goffee and Jones (2005), and Harvey et al. (2006) also insist that
authenticity must be attributed to an individual by others. The leaders cannot asses themselves
to be authentic, but can be described as such only by the people in contact with them. Defined
as such, authenticity is only perceived by others. Therefore, two perspectives exist about
perception of authentic leadership. We use an approach that measures perceived authentic
leadership, which is the most common in quantitative research on the field of authentic
leadership (e.g. Walumbwa et al., 2008; Walumbwa et al., 2010). However, we need to be
aware of the differences in both measuring perspectives, as it is more likely that the leaders
will assess themselves as more authentic (presumably, better) as they are assessed by the
employees (Bass & Yammarino, 1991; Hollander, 1992).

A set of 17 items was used for measuring perceived (assessed by the subordinates, a leader‟s
followers) authentic leadership. A 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = “strongly
disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree” was used (this is true for all the measures in this study).

3 Results

3.1 Exploratory factor analysis

We performed Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to discover the factors underlying our
research construct. It was conducted on a different dataset than further analyses. We have
used a different, smaller sample – 289 employees in one Slovenian company employing about
500 people. We present the results of EFA in Table 2.

Table 2 Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis for Authentic leadership construct

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Authentic leadership Self- Relational Balanced
dimensions awareness Transparency Processing
Variables (Varimax-rotated factor loadings)
AL23 .752 .087 .135
AL26 .719 .224 -.002
AL24 .693 .304 .255
AL27 .686 .327 .244
 AL21 .628 .377 .208
AL25 .612 .329 .325
AL22 .600 .457 .181
AL16 .563 .284 .299
AL19 .544 .405 .382
AL18 .542 .290 .488
AL13 .334 .809 .134
AL14 .373 .786 .087
AL15 .381 .700 .158
AL11 .237 .626 .414
AL12 .098 .586 .524
AL20 .135 .108 .826
AL17 .297 .177 .753
Shares of explained 27.281 21.104 14.975
variance (%)
Eigen Value 4.638 3.588 2.546
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Keiser-Mayer_Olkin measure of sampling adequacy: 0.934

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity approx.
Chi-square: 5655.364
df: 136
sig.:0.000
n = 289

Due to cross-loadings, items AL12 and AL18 were excluded from further analysis. We have
found three factors that correspond with the framework of Walumbwa et al. (2008). However,
we did not find support for a fourth factor, internalized moral perspective. The EFA has
shown this is covered within the self-awareness dimension. This makes sense conceptually
(similar to the fact that positive psychological capital is part of self-awareness) – discovery of
an individual‟s true self involves an exploration of an individual‟s positive capacities and
internalized moral standards, as well.

3.2 Descriptive statistics, validity, and reliability

Previous studies have found support for combining authentic leadership dimensions into one
common core construct (e.g. Walumbwa et al., 2010). Individual dimensions do not add any
significant incremental validity beyond the common core higher factor (Walumbwa et al.,
2008). Furthermore, as written by Walumbwa et al. (2010), there are many conceptual
similarities among the factors and they each represent one aspect of a leader's authenticity. All
the dimensions of authentic leadership are self-regulatory processes that are managed through
individuals' internal standards and evaluations of their own behavior (Gardner et al., 2005).
The latent higher order construct of authentic leadership can help explain the conceptual and
empirical overlap among the dimensions (Walumbwa et al., 2010).

For validation of the measurement instruments, we applied confirmatory factor analysis

(CFA) using LISREL 8.80 software package. Convergent validity and unidimensionality were
examined by the loading paths of all items, which are statistically significant if they exceed
0.50. In the iterative process of purifying the scales several items were excluded from the
further analysis. In the final version of the model, 13 of 17 items were used to measure seven
constructs (Self-awareness, Relational Transparency, Balanced Processing,) that constitute
two latent second-order factor (Authentic leadership). We present factor loadings of all items
in Table 3.

Table 3 Construct validity

Completely
Measurement standardized
Second-order variables Unstandardized factor
factors Constructs (items - final) factor loadings loadings t-values
Relational
Authentic Transparen
Leadership cy AL11 2.49 0.70 0.88 0.71 36.46 14.10
AL13 0.69 0.74 14.30
AL14 0.76 0.74 15.03
AL15 0.69 0.71 15.30
Self-
awareness AL21 4.91 0.71 0.83 0.73 43.82 31.75
AL22 0.76 0.78 32.40
AL23 0.67 0.68 31.34
AL24 0.72 0.71 35.55
AL25 0.71 0.70 31.11
AL26 0.73 0.69 34.55
AL27 0.69 0.75 38.97
Balanced
Processing AL17 3.32 0.74 0.58 0.76 39.87 31.45
AL20 0.65 0.66 30.39

Fit indices: χ2= 35.57 (p=0.000), df= 7, χ2/df =5.08, NNFI = 0.99, CFI = 0.99

Discriminant validity tests (a matrix of zero-order Pearson‟s pairwise correlations for the
initial 3 measurement variables) are presented in Table 4. The Cronbach‟s Alpha coefficients
for each constructs range from 0.70 to 0.89, suggesting that the scales have relatively high
internal consistency.

Table 4 Discriminant validity

Scale/construct 1 2 3
1 SA (0.86)
2 RT 0.73 (0.89)
3 BP 0.47 0.50 (0.70)

Items in the body of the table are pairwise Pearson correlation coefficients. Items in
parentheses on the diagonal are Cronbach's Alphas for each scale.

4 Discussion and implications

The results of exploratory factor analysis demonstrate three theoretically backed-up
(Walumbwa et al., 2008) dimensions of authentic leadership (self-awareness, relational
transparency, and balanced processing). Authentic leadership dimensions mostly correspond
with the framework of Walumbwa et al. (2008). However, we did not find support for a fourth
factor, ethical/moral perspective. The EFA has shown this is covered within the self-
awareness dimension. Apparently, in our study, if the respondents‟ supervisors exhibit high
levels of self-awareness, they exhibit high levels of ethical/moral standards, as well.

The theoretical contribution of this study is to the existing research on authentic leadership in
the aspect of advancing previous research by empirically examining authentic leadership. The
practical contribution is the developed alternative, different, in a way improved, instrument to
measure authentic leadership or to be more exact to measure supervisor‟s authentic leadership
and research it in regard to other constructs.

The main reason that the researchers place so much attention to authentic leadership is
because authentic leadership reaches all of the employees in organizations. We propose to
measure supervisors‟ authentic leadership properties using the measurement instrument that
we have developed, which is similar to the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ), but in
which we have adapted some of the questions based on our literature review and
conceptualization. Specifically, we proceed to include positive psychological capital in the
measure as an integral part of the self-awareness dimension, which is in line with previous
definitions of authentic leadership that do imply authentic leadership to involve high levels of
positive psychological capacities. Furthermore, the very root of authentic leadership construct
is in positive psychology; it has evolved from positive organizational behavior movement. We
feel that the researchers should derive from the beginnings of authentic leadership and follow
the basic model in empirical research. Hence we include positive psychological capital as an
integral part of authentic leadership measure. Since authentic leadership is seen as the final
stage in the development of leadership styles, properties of this leadership style and the
consequences of this style have therefore not have been fully explored. This new measure is
to contribute to further research of authentic leadership and the development of this research
area.

References
1. Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader
behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The
Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 5-32.
2. Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (1992). Does self other agreement on leadership
perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions? Personnel
Psychology, 45(1), 141-164.
3. Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to
the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315-338.
4. 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(6), 801-823.
5. Avolio, B. J., & Locke, E. E. (2002). Contrasting different philosophies of leader
motivation:: Altruism versus egoism. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(2), 169-191.
6. Barron, F., & Harrington, D. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual
review of psychology, 32(1), 439-476.
7. Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1991). Congruence of self and others' leadership
ratings of naval officers for understanding successful performance. Applied Psychology,
40(4), 437-454.
8. Chan, A. W. L., Hannah, S. T., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Veritable authentic
leadership: emergence, functioning, and impact. In W. L. Gardner, B. J. Avolio & F. O.
Walumbwa (Eds.), Authentic Leadership Theory and Practice: Origins, Effects and
Development (pp. 3-41). Oxford: Elsevier.
9. Cooper, C. D., Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2005). Looking forward but
learning from our past: Potential challenges to developing authentic leadership theory
and authentic leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 475-493.
10. Dimovski, V., Penger, S., Peterlin, J., Černe, M., Marič, M., Uhan, M., (2011) Napredni
Management, Ljubljana, Ekonomska fakulteta (in Slovene, publishing planned for
2011).
11. Duignan, P. A., & Bhindi, N. (1997). Authenticity in leadership: an emerging
perspective. Journal of Educational Administration, 35(3), 195-209.
12. Gardner, W., Avolio, B., Luthans, F., May, D., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). "Can you see
the real me?" A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The
Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 343-372.
13. Gardner, W. L., Fischer, D., & Hunt, J. G. (2009). Emotional labor and leadership: A
threat to authenticity? The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 466-482.
14. George, B., Sims, P., McLean, A., & Mayer, D. (2007). Discovering your authentic
leadership. Harvard Business Review, 85(2), 129-138.
15. George, W. (2003). Authentic Leadership: Rediscovering the Secrets to Creating
Lasting Value. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
16. George, W. (2007). Authentic Leaders. Leadership Excellence, 24(9), 16-17.
17. Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2005). Managing authenticity: the paradox of great leadership.
Harvard Business Review, 83(12), 86-94.
18. Harvey, P., Martinko, M., & Gardner, W. (2006). Promoting authentic behavior in
organizations: An attributional perspective. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 12(3), 1-11.
19. Harter, S., (2002) Authenticity. In C.R. Snyder & S. Lopez (eds.), Handbook of positive
psychology, Oxford, Oxford University Press
20. Hollander, E. P. (1992). Leadership, followership, self, and others. The Leadership
Quarterly, 3(1), 43-54.
21. Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and
eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader-follower outcomes. The Leadership
Quarterly, 16(3), 373-394.
22. Jensen, S., & Luthans, F. (2006). Entrepreneurs as authentic leaders: impact on
employees' attitudes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(8), 646-666.
23. Kernis, M. (2003). Toward a Conceptualization of Optimal Self-Esteem. Psychological
Inquiry, 14(1), 1-26.
24. Krause, D. E. (2004). Influence-based leadership as a determinant of the inclination to
innovate and of innovation-related behaviors: An empirical investigation. The
Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 79-102.
25. Ladkin, D., & Taylor, S. S. (2010). Enacting the `true self': Towards a theory of
embodied authentic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 64-74.
26. Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership: A positive developmental
approach. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational
scholarship (pp. 241-261). San Francisco, CA: Barrett- Koehler.
27. May, D. R., Chan, A. Y. L., Hodges, T. D., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Developing the
Moral Component of Authentic Leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32(3), 247-260.
28. Novicevic, M., Harvey, M., Ronald, M., & Brown-Radford, J. (2006). Authentic
leadership: A historical perspective. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,
13(1), 64-76.
29. Oldham, G., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual
factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607-634.
30. Patterson, F. (1999). Innovation Potential Predictor. Oxford: Oxford Psychologists
Press.
31. Penger, S., (2006) Učeča se organizacija in oblikovanje pozitivne organizacijske
identitete: Študija primera slovenskega podjetja (in Slovene, doctoral dissertation),
Ljubljana, Ekonomska fakulteta
32. Peterson, S., & Luthans, F. (2003). The positive impact and development of hopeful
leaders. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(1), 26-31.
33. Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases
in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
34. Price, T. L. (2003). The ethics of authentic transformational leadership. The Leadership
Quarterly, 14(1), 67-81.
35. Schwartz, B., & Sharpe, K. E. (2006). Practical wisdom: Aristotle meets positive
psychology. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7(3), 377-395.
36. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: an
introduction. American psychologist, 55(1), 5-14.
37. Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. (2005). "What's your story?" A life-stories approach to
authentic leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 395-417.
38. Sparrowe, R. T. (2005). Authentic leadership and the narrative self. The Leadership
Quarterly, 16(3), 419-439.
39. 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.
40. Walumbwa, F. O., Wang, P., Wang, H., Schaubroeck, J., & Avolio, B. J. (2010).
Psychological processes linking authentic leadership to follower behaviors. The
Leadership Quarterly, 21(5), 901-914.