Review Questions – Chapter 9: Authentic Leadership

1. Be able to summarize the early period of research of authentic leadership. Who are some of the scholars known for research of authentic leadership? What were their research questions?
Authentic leadership was first identified in transformational leadership and the research conducted by Bass and Howell in the 1990’s. It focuses on whether leadership is genuine and “real” and is a theory still in the formative phase of development. This theory suggests that people feel apprehensive and insecure and what is going on around them, which causes them to long for bona fide leadership – in other words a leader they can trust, who is both good and honest. Some of the prominent scholars within this theory are Bass (1990), Bass and Steidlmeir (1999), Burns (1978) and Howell and Avolio (1993). In order to research this theory two main questions were set out: what are the parameters of authentic leadership? and how can be more clearly identified?

2. How are the practical and theoretical approaches to studying authentic leadership similar or different? How do they compare to the teleological and deontological approaches to studying ethical leadership?
The practical approach of authentic leadership focuses on the “how to” steps in becoming an authentic leader. Furthermore, this approach focuses on the characteristics of authentic leaders such as having a genuine desire to serve others and leading from their core values. Through his research George identified five basic characteristics of authentic leadership including: a strong sense of purpose, strong values, establishing trusting relationships, self-discipline and sensitivity to the plight of others. Conversely the theoretical approach that draws upon and promotes both positive psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate that impact authentic leadership.

3. Why is authentic leadership hard to define? Describe the three different definitions of authentic leadership. What does each definition contribute to our understanding of this concept?
Authentic leadership is hard to define as it can be looked at from different viewpoints with different emphasis. The three main definitions of authentic leadership include: intrapersonal, interpersonal and developmental. Intrapersonal characterizes authentic leadership that incorporates the leader’s self-knowledge, self-regulation and self-concept as well as emphasizing a leader’s life experience. Interpersonal authentic leadership is relational, in other words created both by the leader and the follower. Finally, developmental authentic leadership is leadership that can be nurtured in a leader rather than a fixed trait.

4. What are the five basic characteristics of authentic leadership, according to Bill George? How does George’s approach compare to the trait approach? The Big 5?
The five basic characteristics of authentic leadership according to Bill George are listed below:
1. They have a strong purpose
2. They have strong values about the right thing to do
3. They establish trusting relationships with others
4. They demonstrate self-discipline and act on their values
5. They are sensitive and empathetic to the plight of others.
Compared to the trait theory, these are characteristics that can be gained over time, and are not inherently innate. Furthermore, authentic leaders choose to understand why they are placed in a situation, rather than just accepting it.

5. What is the difference between passion and compassion in George’s AL model?
In George’s AL model compassion is defined as being sensitive to the plight of others and being willing to help them. Comparatively passion refers to an individual who has a deep-seated interest in what they are doing and truly cares about their work.

6. How are the dimensions of AL related to the characteristics of AL in George’s model?
Each dimension of the authentic leadership according to George’s model is linked to a characteristic. These links can be seen below:
• Passion = purpose
• Behavior = values
• Connectedness = relationships
• Consistency = self-discipline
• Compassion = heart

7. Using Walumbwa et al.’s (2008) definition of authentic leadership, distinguish between leader behaviors and traits. What are outcomes of authentic leadership? What is the follower role?
In Walumbwa’s definition of authentic leadership, leadership is described as a behavior that draws upon positive psychological capacities to foster greater self-awareness. In comparison to traits, authentic leadership draws on characteristics that can be acquired over time. Furthermore, this definition suggests that leadership is relational. The leader in this scenario works with the follower to foster self-development. Conversely, the only job of the follower is to be receptive and responsive to the leader to allow such changed to happen.

8. What are some of the effects of authentic leadership on followers?
While there are many factors that can affect authentic leadership positive psychological capacities, moral reasoning and critical life events have an impact on followers. In particular positive psychological attributes include: confidence, hope, optimism and resilience. Leaders that have hope, inspire followers to trust them and believe in their goals. Additionally, the ability of a leader to be resilient places faith in the leader from the follower in overcoming obstacles while achieving their common goal.

9. What is the relationship between team climate and authentic leadership?
The relationship between team climate and authentic leadership is simply how a leader is viewed within an organization. Team climate refers to the atmosphere of an organization and how one individual view’s the working environment. In authentic leadership relationships and atmosphere are directly impacted by the actions and characteristics of the leader, thus meaning team climate and authentic leadership have a direct correlation.

10. How is self-awareness in the AL approach different from the psychodynamic approach? Can you identify a person who exemplifies this component of the model?
Self-awareness within the AL approach refers to the personal insights of a leader. It is a process by which the leader begins to understand his or herself in one’s entirety, including their strengths and weaknesses. Self-awareness indicates a strong moral compass of knowing what is right and what is wrong. This differs in the psychodynamic approach as it would be considered to have a both state-like and trait-like quality, in which self-awareness can be part of one’s personality or can be developed over time. A person that exemplifies self-awareness is Mahatma Gandhi, who through his time as an activist had be self-aware when making decisions about the direction of the nonviolent civil disobedience movement.

11. How does authentic leadership fit with the following components of leadership: process, influence, group context, and goal attainment?
Authentic leadership, like any other form of leadership closely matches the four components of leadership. In particular emphasis is placed on influence and group context as the trust and actions of an authentic leader have a direct impact on the amount of influence the leader has over followers both personally and in a group context. Furthermore, this affects how easily a goal is attained as well as the process taken to get there.

12. What are the strengths and criticisms of the Authentic Leadership approach?

The Authentic Leadership approach has four main criticisms. These are described below:
1. Fulfills an expressed need for trust-worthy leaders in this society; and as such helps to fill the void as to what good leadership looks like.
2. Provides broad guidelines for individuals who want to become authentic leaders
3. Has an explicit moral dimension; in which underlying both approaches of AL is the idea of what is right and wrong.
4. Emphasizes that authentic values can be developed over time; and are not necessarily fixed traits.
5. Can be measured using the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire; which helps to give the theory credibility and validity.

Conversely, this approach also four main criticisms, described in more detail below:
1. Still in the formative stages; and as such has lot of questions still need to be addressed.
2. Moral component is not fully explained; although it is implied that leaders are motivated by higher-order end values, the way that these values function to influence AL is not yet clear.
3. Question as to whether psychological capacities should be included as components
4. It is not clear as how AL results in positive organizational outcomes; while it has been suggested no empirical data has yet been displayed.