COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 1
Running Head: COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP
True to what We stand for:
Championing collective interests as a path to authentic leadership
Niklas K. Steffens1,*, Frank Mols2, S. Alexander Haslam1, & Tyler G. Okimoto3
1 School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia 2 School of Political Science and International Studies, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia 3 UQ Business School, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia * Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Niklas K. Steffens, School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia; Email: [email protected]; Tel.: +61 (0)7 3346 9555; Fax: +61 (0)7 3365 4466.
Accepted (uncorrected) manuscript for publication in The Leadership Quarterly: Steffens, N. K., Mols, F., Haslam, S. A., & Okimoto, T. G. (2016). True to what we stand for: Championing collective interests as a path to authentic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, Advance online publication.
This version is the accepted (uncorrected) version, not the final record, and may not exactly replicate the final version of the article.
Author Note This work was supported by a grant (FL110100199) from the Australian Research Council awarded to the third author. We thank Michelle Oberg for help with data collection for Study 1 and Matthew Hornsey for comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 2
Abstract
Growing evidence points to the role of authentic leadership in enhancing followership. Yet little is known about the factors that determine whether followers perceive leaders as displaying authentic leadership. In the present research, we examine the impact of leaders' championing of collective (group) interests on authentic leadership. Study 1 shows experimentally that compared to a leader who advances personal interests, a leader who advances the interests of a collective is (a) perceived as offering more authentic leadership and (b) more likely to inspire followership. Findings are followed up in a field study revealing that leaders' championing of collective interests is associated with greater perceived authentic leadership and followership (in terms of voting intentions). Furthermore, results indicate that shared self-categorization is a boundary condition of these relationships such that the relationship between a leader's championing of collective (group) interests and authentic leadership (and followership) is more pronounced for perceivers who self- categorize as members of the group that a leader is leading (rather than of a different group).
In sum, findings suggest that leaders are regarded as more authentic to the extent that they are true to the collective identity of the group that they lead.
Keywords: leadership; followership; authentic leadership; self-categorization; identity COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 3
True to what We stand for:
Championing collective interests as a path to authentic leadership
The Chairman and CEO of the pharmaceutical company Novartis, Dan Vasella, has been lauded as a highly successful CEO whose success is often described as being intertwined with his willingness to “follow his heart” and “walk the walk”, as exhibited through his compassionate attempts to help those suffering from life-threatening diseases
(George, 2007). Similarly, Myanmar’s first democratically elected stateswoman, Aung San
Suu Kyi, has been heralded as a leader who passionately stands up for her firm beliefs in freedom and peaceful social change. Recent theory and research demonstrate compellingly that leaders like Vasella and Suu Kyi who are seen as “authentic” are able to inspire a range of positive outcomes — for followers, for groups, for organizations, and for leaders themselves (for a comprehensive review, see Gardner, Cogliser, Davis, & Dickens, 2011).
Yet despite significantly advancing our understanding of the consequences of authentic leadership, researchers have devoted less energy to investigating the factors that shape followers’ perceptions of authentic leadership. What specific behaviors lead people to view leaders as authentic? Such an understanding is critical both for practical development of authentic leadership, as well as for a theoretical account of the effects of authenticity.
According to authentic leadership theory (Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, &
May, 2004; Gardner et al., 2011; Luthans & Avolio, 2003), leaders are deemed authentic when their actions are seen as consistent with their personal values and beliefs; and it is this authenticity that inspires positive outcomes. However, a leader's values and beliefs also tend to stand for the vision and mission of the group and the organization they lead; as such, an authentic leader can be true to both him- or herself and broader organizational values. For example, Vasella's compassion for people in need and his goal of substantially increasing investments in pharmaceutical innovations might reflect his personal values and business COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 4 philosophy as shaped by his personal experiences of suffering during his childhood. Yet this might also reflect his engagement with the broader vision and mission of Novartis as the company has evolved (a mission that distinguished the company from rival companies): “As
CEO, I have the leverage to impact the lives of many more people. At the end of the day the only thing that matters is what we do or omit to do for other people” (cited in George, 2007, p. 49). Likewise, Suu Kyi's willingness to champion the cause of freedom and democracy might arise from her personal experiences and beliefs. However, it might also reflect the will and interests of the Burmese people (in contrast to those of the Burmese military). Indeed, as she put it: “The best way to help Burma is to empower the people of Burma, to help us have enough self-confidence to obtain what we want for ourselves” (Globalpost, 2010). In other words, perceived leader au- thenticity may follow from leaders being authentic to their own beliefs, and/or their being authentic to a broader group vision that they represent (and that differentiate their ingroup from rival outgroups). Moreover, both may be embodied in followers' perceptions of a leader's relationship to the collective identity, and of their actions in relation to that identity.
In the present research, we use self-categorization theory as a theoretical basis for understanding authentic leadership perceptions as potentially originating from a leader's pursuit of both individual and collective interests. A core tenet of this theory is that a person's sense of self is flexible and, depending on features of the prevailing social context, can be defined at different levels of abstraction (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008; after Ashforth
& Mael, 1989; Turner, 1982; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). At a lower level of abstraction, a person's sense of personal identity (as “I”) is defined exclusively in terms of idiosyncratic traits and attributes; at a higher level of abstraction, a sense of social identity (as “us”; e.g., “us leadership scholars”) is defined inclusively in terms of characteristics (e.g., norms, values, and goals) that are believed to be shared with fellow COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 5 ingroup members (for reviews, see Ellemers, 2012; Postmes & Branscombe, 2010; Reicher,
Spears, & Haslam, 2010).
Integrating ideas from work on authentic leadership and self-categorization theory, we propose that followers' perceptions of leaders' authenticity are partly shaped by followers' perceptions of the leader's relationship to a collective identity, and followers' own relationship to that identity. More specifically, we propose that followers' perceptions of leaders' authenticity will vary as a function of the degree to which leaders are seen to enact a collective self by advancing the collective interests of their ingroup (i.e., so that they are seen to be championing that group rather than other groups or themselves as individuals; Giessner, van Knippenberg, van Ginkel, & Sleebos, 2013; Haslam, Reicher, & Platow, 2011; van
Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). Thus, it is not only personal self-consistency per se that inspires authenticity judgements, but also collective self-consistency. We first test the proposed model in an experimental study to address issues of causality and then follow up the results in a second study to examine these relationships in the field.
The research aims to make at least three important contributions to the literatures on leadership and followership. First, our goal is to shed light on the origins of authentic leadership perceptions. As noted above, this is important because we know relatively little about the factors that shape these perceptions. Second, we attempt to expand upon suggestions that authentic leadership is affected by followers’ perceptions of leaders’ relationship to their inner (personal) self by providing evidence of the extent to which authentic leadership is also affected by followers’ perceptions of leaders’ orientation to a collective (group) self. Third, by examining authentic leadership perceptions and followership simultaneously, we seek to identify the conditions under which these two processes are (and are not) aligned. COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 6
Conceptualizations and Antecedents of Authentic Leadership
In the last decade, the impact that authentic leadership has on followers and on organizations has been a major research focus for the leadership literature. Although authentic leadership has been defined in a range of different ways, conceptualizations center on issues of truth and fidelity to the self, as captured in phrases such as “saying what one means” and “being true to yourself”. The model by Avolio and colleagues integrates early approaches to authentic leadership, offering what is now the most widely tested conceptualization of authentic leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Walumbwa, Avolio,
Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008). They conclude that “the essence of authenticity is to know, accept, and remain true to one’s self” (Avolio et al., 2004, p. 802).
The majority of research has focused on discussing authentic leadership as a general factor (Gardner et al., 2011). Nonetheless, various models propose that this general factor consists of lower-level sub-components. For example, the widely used model of Walumbwa,
Avolio, and colleagues (2008; see also Neider & Schriesheim, 2011) considers four sub- components that together make up the general factor of authentic leadership. These are: (1) self-awareness (i.e., being aware of the way in which one derives meaning from the world and of the impact one has on others), (2) relational transparency (i.e., presenting one’s authentic, rather than fake or distorted, self to other people as well as minimizing displays of inappropriate emotions), (3) balanced processing (i.e., objectively analyzing all data before making decisions as well as soliciting feedback that challenges one’s own views), and (4) internalized moral perspective (i.e., being guided by moral standards and behaving in ways that are congruent with internalized values rather than yielding to group, organizational, and societal pressures).
Empirical evidence from a range of samples, sectors, and countries provides support for the idea that leaders who are seen to be authentic (in ways consistent with the above COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 7 definition) are also effective in the sense that they are able to mobilize followers' energies and to increase group and organizational success. For instance, empirical evidence indicates that followers' perceptions of authentic leadership are positively related not only to (a) organizational performance (Clapp-Smith, Vogelgesang, & Avey, 2009), but also to followers' (b) job satisfaction and work engagement (Giallonardo, Wong, & Iwasiw, 2010;
Wong, Spence Laschinger, & Cummings, 2010), (c) performance (Wong & Cummings,
2009), and (d) satisfaction with their leader (Walumbwa et al., 2008).
As Gardner and colleagues (2011) observe in their comprehensive review of research on this topic, our awareness of the importance of authentic leadership has grown dramatically since the construct was first formally explored more than a decade ago (Avolio & Gardner,
2005; Avolio et al., 2004; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, &
Walumbwa, 2005; George, 2007; Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005; Luthans & Avolio,
2003; Walumbwa et al., 2008). However, despite this progress, only two of the 91 articles identified in Gardner and colleagues’ (2011) review involved empirical investigation of the dynamics that are associated with authentic leadership perceptions. In the first of these two studies Jensen and Luthans (2006) found that leaders who had more psychological capital
(i.e., greater hope, optimism, and resilience) perceived themselves to have greater authentic leadership. In the second, Tate (2008) found that leaders’ engagement in self-monitoring was unrelated to their perceptions of their own authentic leadership. Critically, though, none of the available research investigated antecedents of followers’ perceptions of authentic leadership. This is an important gap in understanding since ultimately it is followers’ understanding (including their perceptions of leaders as more or less authentic) and their subsequent actions that account for leaders’ impact in the world at large (Bennis, 1999;
Haslam & Platow, 2001; Hollander, 1992). COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 8
Despite earlier calls to attend to this issue (Fields, 2007; see also Cooper, Scandura, &
Schriesheim, 2005; Shamir & Eilam, 2005), this picture has not changed substantially in recent years. Nevertheless, research is starting to address this issue (and to provide insights into underlying process) by showing that perceptions of authentic leadership are positively related to (a) followers’ sense that there is alignment between their own personal values and the core personal values of the leader as well as those followers’ general belief in social change (Williams, Pillai, Deptula, & Lowe, 2012), (b) leaders’ self-consistency and knowledge of their personal self (Peus, Wesche, Streicher, Braun, & Frey, 2012), and (c) correspondence between leaders’ physical actions and both their verbal expressions and their portrayed life story (Weischer, Weibler, & Petersen, 2013). Nevertheless, to date, little attempt has been made to integrate these various insights with literature that focuses on the role of groups in leadership and followership processes. As we will outline in more detail below, in the present research we aim to shed light on those group dynamics that are likely to be more (or less) conducive to authentic leadership perceptions. To this end, we examine the contribution of principles formulated within both charismatic leadership research and the social identity approach to leadership that focus on leaders’ championing of group interests.
Leaders’ Championing of Collective Interests
Charismatic leadership research and social identity theorizing both make the point that leaders’ ability to influence followers results from their being perceived to promote the interests of a higher-order collective rather than merely their personal interests. In this regard, charismatic leadership research suggests that leaders can enhance their charisma not only through personalized behavior (that binds followers to them as individuals) but also through socialized actions (that bind followers to a collective of which they are representative;
Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). The key idea here is that by transcending their personal interests through attention to the greater good, “socialized charismatic” leaders are able to COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 9 stimulate positive follower behavior and also advance societal goals (Conger & Kanungo,
1998; Howell & Shamir, 2005). Indeed, evidence presented by Kark, Shamir, and Chen
(2003) shows that followers’ perceptions of leaders’ transformational behaviors are associated not only with followers’ personal identification with leaders but also with followers’ identification with a collective. Moreover, evidence indicates that the former is positively associated with followers’ dependency while the latter is positively associated with followers’ sense of empowerment. This suggests that for leaders to be effective, they need to act (and be seen to act) in a selfless or self-sacrificial manner that promotes interests associated with a higher-order or “greater” good.
Along similar lines, the social identity approach to leadership asserts that when people categorize themselves and others in terms of a shared social identity (as “us”), this has important consequences for social, organizational, and political behavior in general (Ashforth
& Mael, 1989; Haslam, 2001; Hogg & Terry, 2001; Turner et al., 1987; Tyler & Blader,
2003; van Dick, 2001) but for leadership and followership in particular (Ellemers, de Gilder,
& Haslam, 2004; Haslam et al., 2011; Hogg, 2001; Turner, 1991; Platow, Haslam, Reicher, &
Steffens, 2015; Thomas, Martin, & Riggio, 2013; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003; van
Knippenberg, 2011). Amongst other things, the approach asserts that in order to succeed in influencing followers, leaders need to act as identity champions by advancing the collective interests of the (in)group that they are leading rather than their personal interests or those of other (out)groups (Giessner et al., 2013; Graf, Schuh, van Quaquebeke, & van Dick, 2012;
Haslam & Platow, 2001; Haslam et al., 2001, 2011; Steffens et al., 2014; van Dick et al.,
2007; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005).
This idea of leaders as champions of a group also has some similarities with the notion of leaders as group prototypes (i.e., people who embody the norms, beliefs, and values that characterize a group; for reviews, see Haslam et al., 2011; Hogg, van Knippenberg, & COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 10
Rast, 2012; van Knippenberg, 2011). While leaders’ prototypicality and championing of collective interests will often go hand in hand, they are not the same and can also diverge.
Specifically, while leaders who are seen as prototypical (or representative) of an identity may generally also engage in behavior that champions interests associated with that identity, it is possible (a) for highly prototypical leaders to be unwilling to engage in behavior that involves standing up for the group and actively furthering collective interests, and (b) for leaders who are not prototypical of a group to behave in ways that actively champion the interests of that group (for more in-depth discussion of similarities and differences between these two concepts, see Haslam et al., 2011; Steffens et al., 2014; Steffens, Schuh, Haslam, Pérez, & van Dick, 2015). Moreover, it is also noteworthy that in contrast to transformational models, the social identity approach argues that for leaders to be effective, they need to forgo their personal interests not for any higher-order group but rather for interests that are specific to a salient (in)group that is self-defining for followers.
At first glance, the suggestion that leadership involves sacrificing personal interests for group interests, emphasized in both charismatic and social identity approaches, appears to be at odds with the idea that effective leaders are authentically “true to one’s self”. However, we argue that these viewpoints are actually complementary. Building on the simple but important idea that leaders may construct their sense of self on the basis of who they are as distinct individuals as well as on the basis of who they are as members of a distinct collective, we propose that followers may make sense of leaders’ authenticity not only with reference to leaders’ personal self but also with reference to a collective self — that is, the group or higher-order entity that they are leading. Moreover, one important way in which followers may understand whether leaders are being true to such a collective self is through their assessment that the leader is standing up for that collective and championing its collective interests. COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 11
By way of example, one would expect that an action by a national leader will be seen as more authentic when she or he stands up for the nation through actions that further its cause rather than the cause of other nations or themselves as individuals. Thus U.S. President
George W. Bush’s authentic leadership attracted fierce criticism in 2012 for charging Helping a Hero (a US war veteran’s charity) $100.000 for a speech he delivered, but he was seen as more authentic (more self-aware, more relationally transparent, more balanced, more moral) a decade earlier, when he stood up for America’s interests in the wake of the 9/11 attacks (New
York Times, 2001). Indeed, this example resonates with evidence provided by Bligh, Kohles, and Meindl (2004) that Bush’s rhetoric in the aftermath of 9/11 made (and was portrayed by the media as making) stronger appeals to general values. Similarly, there were few objections to the authentic leadership of Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott when he commended
Australian troops for their bravery and for embodying the ANZAC spirit, but he was seen as inauthentic when he awarded an Australian Knighthood — an honor that is believed to serve the purpose of celebrating Australians of extraordinary achievement and merit — to Britain’s
Prince Philip (Guardian, 2015). More formally, this argument leads to the following hypothesis:
H1. Followers will regard a leader as displaying authentic leadership to the extent that
that leader is seen to champion the collective interests of the group that he or she is
leading rather than personal interests or those of an outgroup.
Yet beyond perceptions of authentic leadership, it is also instructive to reflect on the simultaneous impact that the championing of collective interests has on followership, with a view to gaining a better understanding of the extent to which perceptions of authentic leadership and followership go hand in hand (or else diverge). In this regard, theory and research suggest that advancing collective interests will have a bearing not just on perceptions of leadership but also on acts of followership. For example, an experiment by COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 12
Haslam and Platow (2001) showed that when leaders stood up for their own group (rather than a competing outgroup) followers generated more creative ideas to help turn the leaders’ plans into reality (see also Haslam et al., 2001). Similarly, van Knippenberg and van
Knippenberg (2005) showed that leaders who sacrifice their own interests for those of their group are seen to be more effective and proven more capable of enhancing follower performance. Moreover, several experimental and field studies by van Dick and colleagues show that leaders who are seen to identify strongly with their group (and by inference who are more willing to advance the interests of that group because they see the group as self- defining) are more effective, as indicated by their capacity to increase followers’ (a) identification with an organization and organizational citizenship (van Dick, Hirst, Grojean,
& Wieseke, 2007), (b) performance (Schuh & van Dick, 2010), and (c) personal identification with the leader (Steffens et al., 2015).
Together, these various strands of research suggest that leaders’ group-oriented behavior is associated with followers’ positive response to those leaders. In the present research, we seek to expand upon this insight by examining the degree to which follower perceptions of political leaders’ championing of collective interests affect their followership as defined by voting intentions. Here we anticipate that followers will be more willing to follow a leader by voting for him or her when that leader is seen to be true to the collective self in championing interests associated with the group that they are leading. More specifically, we hypothesize that:
H2. Followers will be more likely to follow a leader (as assessed by intentions to vote for
the leader) to the extent that the leader is seen to champion collective interests of the
group that he or she is leading, rather than personal interests or those of an outgroup.
The preceding discussion suggests that leaders’ championing of collective interests may be a path both to authentic leadership perceptions and to followership. Does this mean, COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 13 though, that leaders only need to advance the interests of their collective constituency to be regarded as inherently true and authentic? Or does leaders’ championing of collective interests promote a sense of authenticity in the eyes of some followers but not others? In this regard, the literature suggests that followers’ responses are likely to vary as a function of whether or not they share collective identity with the leader (Turner, 1991; for empirical evidence see Platow & van Knippenberg, 2001; Steffens, Haslam, & Reicher, 2014; Ullrich,
Christ, & van Dick, 2009; van Dijke & de Cremer, 2010). More specifically, we suggest that a leader’s enactment and advancement of collective interests should have a stronger impact on followers’ perceptions of leaders’ authenticity when followers perceive leaders to be aligned with a collective entity that they see as self-defining.
It is also worth highlighting some of the key conceptual similarities and differences between, on the one hand, shared group membership (or shared self-categorization) between followers and leaders (as discussed here) and, on the other hand, the extent to which a leader is seen to act in ways that champion the interests of the group he or she is part of (as discussed in the preceding section). Leaders might be categorized as belonging to a specific group, and their followers may similarly define themselves (or not define themselves) as part of that same group. Moreover, leaders are likely to vary in the extent to which they actively champion the interests of their particular group (i.e., of a group that followers see themselves as belonging to or not). Indeed, a leader may belong to a particular group, yet still be seen as doing little to stand up for the interests of that group and instead be seen as championing the interests of other groups (that he or she may be a member of or not) or as championing his or her personal interests. As a result, followers’ perceptions of leader authenticity and followership as a result of the leader’s championing of collective interests are likely to depend on their perceptions of shared group membership with the leader, but such judgments COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 14 will be particularly pronounced when the leader champions the interests of a valued group — a group that followers believe in and see as an important part of who they are.
Indeed, although a leader may be committed to principles that promote the pursuit of truth and may act consistently in ways that are guided by his or her moral principles, there is rarely consensus among all potential followers about what “truth” is or about what ends or whose interests particular moral principles should be serving. Along these lines, even
Mahatma Gandhi’s leadership — which centered on fervent commitment to key generic values and beliefs (e.g., a belief in non-violent protest) and led to him being seen by many as a saint — was not seen as equally authentic by all. For example, some Hindu subgroups criticized his national leadership for not being sufficiently pro-Hindu and other religious factions in India (in particular, Jews and Muslims) were critical of his stance because it failed to serve their interests (Nanda & Nanda, 1985). Accordingly, it seems likely that shared social self-categorization acts as a boundary condition for the relationships proposed in H1 and H2 such that support for these hypotheses will be more pronounced under conditions of shared identity between leaders and followers. Thus we hypothesize:
H3. Shared social self-categorization will moderate the relationship between leaders’
championing of collective interests and authentic leadership. Specifically, the
relationship between leaders’ championing of collective interests and authentic
leadership will be more pronounced when would-be followers see a leader to be
affiliated to a group that they see as self-defining (an ingroup) rather than a different
group (an outgroup).
H4. Shared social self-categorization will moderate the relationship between leaders’
championing of collective interests and followers’ followership (i.e., voting
intentions). Specifically, the relationship between leaders’ championing of collective
interests and followership (i.e., voting intentions) will be more pronounced when COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 15
would-be followers see a leader to be affiliated to a group that they see as self-
defining (an ingroup) rather than a different group (an outgroup).
The Present Research
In the present research, we conducted two studies in different contexts and using different methodologies to examine the impact of followers’ perceptions of leaders’ championing of collective interests on authentic leadership. To test the causal impact of the proposed relationships, in Study 1 we provide an experimental test by manipulating followers’ perceptions that leaders are champions of collective (rather than personal) interests before assessing authentic leadership and followership (thereby testing H1 and H2). In Study
2, our goal was to replicate this study in the field and also to examine the degree to which shared self-categorization between perceivers and leaders serves as a boundary condition for these hypotheses (thereby also testing H3 and H4).
Study 1
Method
Participants
A sample of 74 participants took part in this study. They were recruited on campus at
The University of Queensland (in Brisbane, Australia) and participated voluntarily. Missing data in one case resulted in a final sample of 73 participants. Participants’ mean age was
30.03 years (SD=11.80) and 54 (73.0%) participants were female (one participant did not specify their gender). Participants were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions (leader championing personal versus collective interests).
Procedure and measures
The experiment was conducted one month after the 2013 leadership challenge to
Australia’s Prime Minister (a reassessment of the Prime Minister by all Members of her party) and prior to the 2013 Australian federal election. Participants were invited to take part COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 16 in a study entitled “Perceptions about contemporary leaders” and in both conditions they were presented with a one-page commentary newspaper article about Bill Shorten, a senior
Minister of the Australian Government at the time. The article was identical in both conditions and discussed Shorten’s change of mind in switching his support from the then
Prime Minister in office (Julia Gillard) to the newly proposed Prime Minister (Kevin Rudd).
The article discussed the fact that Bill Shorten showed inconsistent behavior by first transferring his support from Rudd to Gillard in 2010 and then transferring it back from
Gillard to Rudd three years later.
The articles in the two conditions differed in emphasizing that the leader’s inconsistent behavior was motivated by the leader’s advancement of either personal interests or collective interests. The article in the “personal interests” condition was titled “Bill
Shorten changes his mind to advance personal interests”. The article further emphasized that although he said that he was acting to advance national interests, he changed his mind because he was pursuing his personal ambitions and that he regarded himself as a suitable future Prime Minister. In contrast, in the “collective interests” condition the article was titled
“Bill Shorten changes his mind to advance collective interests”. The article then emphasized that Shorten had changed his mind because he was mindful of Australia's needs and that he believed changing the Prime Minister would be in the best interest of the nation.
Following the manipulation, participants in both conditions watched a four-minute video of a press conference in which Shorten declared that he had changed his mind to support a new future Prime Minister (Kevin Rudd), and in which he also asked the public to vote for this candidate in the upcoming federal election. Afterwards, participants in both conditions responded to the measures below and then provided demographic data before being debriefed. COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 17
Manipulation check. Participants responded to three items that assessed the extent to which they believed that the leader had acted to advance collective, rather than personal, interests (α=.82; “Bill Shorten changed his mind in order to advance the interests of
Australians as a whole”; “Bill Shorten changed his mind in order to advance his personal interests” [reversed scored] on scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree); and “Bill Shorten changed his mind to advance…1 (personal interests) to 7
(collective interests)”).
Authentic leadership. Participants responded on 5-point Likert scales ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) to the 14 items (α=.90) of Neider and Schriesheim's
(2011) Authentic Leadership Inventory (ALI). This global authentic leadership measure comprises four sub-dimensions: self-awareness (α=.69; three items: e.g., “Bill Shorten shows that he understands his strengths and weaknesses”), relational transparency (α=.76; three items: e.g., “Bill Shorten clearly states what he means”), internalized moral perspective
(α=.77; four items: e.g., “Bill Shorten shows consistency between his beliefs and actions”), and balanced processing (α=.60; four items: e.g., “Bill Shorten carefully listens to alternative perspectives before reaching a conclusion”).
Followership. Participants responded to one item assessing the extent to which they were willing to follow Shorten’s appeal to vote for the candidate he was proposing (“If elections were held tomorrow, which leader would you vote for?”). Participants were invited to choose between the candidate Shorten was proposing (Kevin Rudd) and the alternative candidates from the main competing parties (Tony Abbott, Christine Milne, or “Other”). To provide a test of H2, we combined the choices of alternative candidates to assess whether participants were willing to vote for the candidate proposed by the leader or for an alternative candidate. COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 18
Results
Preliminary analyses examining factors of authentic leadership
Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations between variables are presented in
Table 1. We followed the general recommendations by Neider and Schriesheim (2011) to assess in each sample whether it is more appropriate to treat the four ALI dimensions separately or together as part of an overall authentic leadership factor in the main analyses.
We note that addressing the question of whether or not a global or a component conceptualization of authentic leadership is more suitable is not a key aim of the present paper; more definite tests and carefully designed studies with the aim of examining the factor structure in multiple studies and samples are needed to address this matter conclusively.
Nonetheless, it was critical to determine which conceptualization is more appropriate in the present case. Although we do not intend to draw inferences with regard to the factor structure of authentic leadership more generally as assessed by the ALI, providing a rigorous test of the evidence in relation to higher-order factors contributes to the current debate in organizational psychology. Credé and Harms’ (2015) review of higher-order factor treatment in leading organizational psychology journals revealed that in most studies researchers claimed to find support for a higher-order factor, while on the basis of the Credé and Harms’ (2015) recommendations, interpretation of support for a higher-order factor was not warranted in the majority of these cases.
To engage constructively in this debate, we adopted Credé and Harms’ (2015) recent comprehensive guidelines for testing and interpreting evidence in support of (versus against) the appropriateness of higher-order models. A summary of the CFA results for competing models is presented in Table 2 (see Appendix for more detailed results). Overall, analysis of five sets of evidence for (versus against) a higher-order model provided more support for than against a higher-order model of authentic leadership. On the basis of these results, and COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 19 consistent with our hypotheses and previous research that conceptualizes authentic leadership as a global higher-order construct (Gardner et al., 2011), we therefore analyzed results at the higher-order level of authentic leadership. We would note, though, that if the data are analyzed at the level of the sub-dimensions, results are largely identical.1
Main analyses
Manipulation check
Means as a function of experimental condition and inferential statistics are presented in Table 3. We conducted a multivariate analysis of variance of experimental condition on the manipulation check and authentic leadership. Analysis revealed an effect of experimental condition on the leader’s championing of collective interests, F(1,71)=6.95, p=.010, MD=.82,
95%CIs [.20, 1.44], Cohen’s d=.63, indicating that participants perceived a leader as a greater champion of collective interests when that leader was said to be championing collective interests (M=4.11, 95%CIs [3.66, 4.56], SD=1.09) more than when that leader was said to be championing personal interests (M=3.29, 95%CIs [2.87, 3.71], SD=1.49). This suggests that our manipulation was successful.
Authentic leadership
Analysis revealed a significant effect of condition on authentic leadership,
F(1,71)=6.56, p=.013, MD=.54, 95%CIs [.12, .96], Cohen’s d=.60. Participants saw a leader who championed collective interests as displaying greater authentic leadership (M=4.31,
95%CIs [4.00, 4.62], SD=.87) than a leader who championed personal interests (M=3.77,
95%CIs [3.49, 4.06], SD=.92).
Followership
A chi-square test indicated that participants were more likely to follow the leader when the leader was championing collective, rather than personal, interests, χ2 (1,
N=73)=4.77, p=.029. When the leader was championing personal interests, 33.3% of COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 20 participants (13 out of 39) were likely to follow the leader’s proposal by voting for the candidate that the leader had advocated. In contrast, 58.8% of participants (20 out of 34) followed the leader in this way when the leader was said to be championing collective interests. An odds ratio of 2.86 indicates that followers were more than twice as likely to follow the leader by voting for the candidate the leader endorsed when the leader was seen to be championing collective, rather than personal, interests.
Discussion
Study 1 aimed to provide a causal examination of the extent to which perceptions of authentic leadership and acts of followership are structured by a leader’s championing of collective, rather than personal, interests. Supporting H1, respondents regarded a leader who championed collective interests to be a more authentic leader than a leader who championed personal interests. Moreover, supporting H2, participants were more willing to follow a leader (by voting for the candidate that the leader had proposed) when the leader was said
(and seen) to be advancing collective, rather than personal, interests. Both effects were robust and of moderate to large size (Cumming, 2014). In this way, experimental findings provide solid support for a causal model in which a leader’s advancement of collective interests that are associated with a shared group membership serves to structure both perceptions of their authentic leadership and group members' acts of followership.
Yet despite this support for our main hypotheses, the inferences we can draw on the basis of the present findings are limited in certain ways. First, the study only examined leaders who advanced either collective interests or personal interests. We manipulated the variable of interest in this way largely because in many contexts, perceptions of a leader’s advancement of personal and collective interests are likely to be negatively correlated.
Nevertheless, as self-categorization theory suggests, it is possible for the advancement of collective interests to be independent of advancement of personal interests (such that COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 21 advancement of collective interests is sometimes seen as advancement of personal interests and sometimes not). Furthermore, it is also possible that a leader may fail to advance the collective interests of a particular (in)group by advancing the collective interests of an alternative (out)group. Accordingly, to examine the broader impact of a leader’s advancement of collective interests, Study 2 aimed to explore the impact of a leader being seen to be championing the collective interests of a given group independently of whether participants regarded him or her to be simultaneously championing personal interests or those of an outgroup.
A second limitation of this first study arises from the fact that people can self- categorize as members of various groups — not only at an abstract superordinate level (e.g., as an Australian) but also at less abstract lower levels (e.g., as a member of a particular political party, e.g., the Labor party in the Australian context). It is thus conceivable that the impact of leaders’ advancement of the collective interests of a lower-level identity (e.g., a particular department vis-à-vis other departments within an organization; a political party vis-
à-vis other parties within a country) is likely to depend on whether a would-be follower regards him- or herself to be a member of that same lower-level group or of another alternative group (in ways envisaged by H3 and H4). To address these issues, we examined whether or not these patterns were particularly clear among followers who self-categorize themselves as a member of the specific group under the leader’s charge.
Study 2
In Study 2 we sought to replicate Study 1 and extend it in two important ways. First, we aimed to provide a more general test of our hypotheses by examining the relationship between the championing of collective interests and authentic leadership in the field. Second, we set out to quantify the degree to which the relationship between a leader’s championing of collective (group) interests and authentic leadership perceptions and followership are more COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 22 pronounced for perceivers who self-categorize as members of the group that a leader is leading (rather than as members of a different group). This involved a study with a geographically and demographically representative sample of Australians two weeks prior to the country's 2013 general election.
Method
Participants
Two hundred and fifty-five Australian citizens (118 males; 136 females; 1 did not specify) participated in the present study. They were recruited from the general population via a professional online recruiting company (ORU) — Australia’s leading online data sampling company that has access to the largest research panel in Australia and ensures representative sampling of the population — and received $10 for their participation.
Participants ranged in age from 18 to 83 years (M=46.95; SD=17.97) and were geographically representative of the country’s electorate, being dispersed across Federal
States largely consistent with population density, residing in New South Wales (n=81),
Victoria (n=65), Queensland (n=50), South Australia (n=22), Western Australia (n=20),
Tasmania (n=10), Australian Capital Territory (n=6), and Northern Territory (n=1).
Design and procedure
We assessed people's perceptions of the authentic leadership of the two key contestants for the office of Prime Minister (Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd) among people who identified with one of the two major political parties in Australia (the Liberal and Labor parties). In this way, the study allowed us to investigate people's perceptions of authentic leadership in the context of a momentous decision about the future of their country as well as to assess parallel effects on the degree to which they were pre- pared to follow a leader by giving them their vote in the election. Stated more formally, the study employed a quasi- experimental 2 (follower self-categorization: Liberal versus Labor) × 2 (leader group COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 23 affiliation: leader of the Liberal party [Tony Abbott] versus leader of the Labor party [Kevin
Rudd]) between-participants design, in which leaders' championing of the collective interests of their party (hereafter referred to as collective identity advancement) was co-measured.
Participants were invited to take part in a study entitled “Survey about evaluation of various political leaders”. They then were asked to indicate the political party that they identified most strongly with based on the single-item social identification measure (SISI;
Postmes, Haslam, & Jans, 2013): “If you had to chose between the different major political parties (e.g., Liberal party, Labor party), which do you identify most strongly with? I identify most strongly with…Liberal party/ Labor party/ Greens/ Other”. If respondents self- categorized in terms of a party other than one of the two major parties, the survey was terminated and they were thanked for their participation. If they self-categorized as either
Liberal or Labor, they then responded to a series of items assessing the leadership of either
Tony Abbott (leader of the Liberal Party) or Kevin Rudd (leader of the Labor party). More specifically, participants responded on 7-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) to four items (α=.94) assessing leader collective identity advancement from the Identity Leadership Inventory (ILI; Steffens et al., 2014; “[This leader] promotes the interests of [the Liberal/Labor Party]”, “This leader acts as a champion for [the
Liberal/Labor Party]”; “This leader stands up for [the Liberal/Labor Party]”; “When this leader acts, he has [Labor/Liberal] interests at heart”).
After this, they responded on 5-point scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree) to the same items as in Study 1 assessing authentic leadership (14 items,
α=.97, from the ALI; Neider & Schriesheim, 2011). They also responded on 7-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) to an item assessing political followership as indicated by their voting intention (“If elections were held tomorrow, I’d vote COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 24 for [this leader]”). After this, participants provided demographic details and were reimbursed and debriefed.
Results
Preliminary analyses examining factors of authentic leadership
Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations between variables are presented in
Table 4. As in Study 1, and consistent with recommendations by Neider and Schriesheim
(2011), we performed CFAs with all ALI items to test whether a conceptualization that treats the four ALI dimensions separately or one that treats these together as part of an overall authentic leadership factor in this particular sample had better fit to the data. We again followed the procedure and analyses recommended by Credé and Harms (2015) to examine the evidence for (versus against) a higher-order factor. An overview of the CFA results for competing models are presented in Table 5 (for detailed results, see Appendix). Overall, results provide stronger support for than against a higher-order model of authentic leadership.
Based on these results, and in line with Study 1 and previous research that conceptualizes authentic leadership as a higher-order construct (Gardner et al., 2011), we analyzed the data at the level of the higher-order construct authentic leadership. Note that if the four sub- dimensions are analyzed as separate variables, patterns are largely identical.2
Main analyses
To assess authentic leadership as a function of leader collective identity advancement and shared self-categorization, we ran a series of linear regression analyses. To this end, followers’ self-categorization and leaders’ group affiliation were combined into the single variable of shared self-categorization (i.e., Labor self-identifiers evaluating Labor party leader and Liberal self-identifiers evaluating Liberal party leader) versus non-shared self- categorization (i.e., Labor self-identifiers evaluating Liberal party leader and Liberal self- identifiers evaluating Labor party leader).3 Non-shared and shared self-categorization COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 25 between follower and leader were coded as 0 and 1, respectively, and leader collective identity advancement was z-standardized prior to computing the interaction term (Aiken &
West, 1991; Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). Results of the linear regression analyses are presented in Table 6. Due to missing data points, degrees of freedom vary slightly across different analyses.
Authentic leadership
Supporting H1, analysis revealed that perceived authentic leadership was predicted by a leader’s advancement of collective interests, b=.38, 95%CIs [.30, .46], SE=.04, β=.37, t(252)=8.98, p<.001. It was also predicted by shared self-categorization, b=1.15, 95%CIs
[.99, 1.32], SE=.09, β=.57, t(252)=13.61, p<.001. Furthermore, consistent with H3, analysis also revealed a significant interaction effect between leader collective identity advancement and shared self-categorization, b=.29, 95%CIs [.09, .48], SE=.10, β=.14, t(251)=2.87, p=.004.
This interaction is shown in Figure 1.
The interaction was decomposed by means of simple slope analysis (Cohen et al.,
2003; Preacher, Curran, & Bauer, 2006). Results indicated that followers perceived a leader as more authentic when that leader was seen to promote collective interests of the leader’s party, even when followers did not self-identify with that collective, b=.32, 95%CIs
[.22, .41], SE=.05, β=.31, t(251)=6.62, p<.001 (Labor self-identifiers evaluating the leadership of the Liberal candidate and Liberal self-identifiers evaluating the leadership of the
Labor candidate). However, consistent with H3, the relationship between leader collective identity advancement and perceptions of authentic leadership was stronger when followers believed a leader was affiliated with the collective entity (i.e., the political party) that they also identified with, b=.60, 95%CIs [.43, .77], SE=.09, β=.59, t(251)=6.88, p<.001. COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 26
Followership
Supporting H2, analysis yielded a significant positive relationship between leader collective identity advancement and followership (voting intentions), b=.43, 95%CIs
[.28, .59], SE=.08, β=.16, t(251)=5.51, p<.001. Moreover, the relationship between shared self-categorization and followership was also significant, b=4.31, 95%CIs [4.00, 4.62],
SE=.16, β=.82, t(251)=27.46, p<.001. Providing more specific support for H4, there was also a significant interaction between leader collective identity advancement and shared self- categorization, b=1.26, 95%CIs [.93, 1.59], SE=.17, β=.23, t(250)=7.46, p<.001, as shown in
Figure 2.
Decomposition of the interaction revealed that the impact of leader collective identity advancement on followers’ voting intentions was only marginally significant when followers believed a leader to be affiliated to a different collective, b=.14, 95%CIs [–.02, .30], SE=.08,
β=.05, t(250)=1.72, p=.087. Yet consistent with H4, under conditions of shared self- categorization there was a significant positive relationship between leader collective identity advancement and followership, b=1.40, 95%CIs [1.11, 1.69], SE=.15, β=.53, t(251)=9.47, p<.001. This indicated that followers were more willing to vote for a leader to the extent that the leader was seen to advance collective interests of a group that they saw as self-defining.
Discussion
Study 2 sought to extend previous findings by examining our hypotheses in the field.
Supporting H1 and H2, and replicating the experimental findings from Study 1, followers perceived a leader (either Tony Abbott or Kevin Rudd) as displaying greater authentic leadership and were more likely to follow the leader to the extent that the leader was seen to be advancing the collective interests of the group that he led. Moreover, supporting H3, shared self-categorization was a boundary condition of the positive relationship between leader collective identity advancement and authentic leadership. Specifically, a leader who COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 27 advanced collective interests was regarded as a more authentic leader to the extent that followers believed the leader to be advancing the collective interests of a group that they self- categorized as a member of — that is, when leaders were seen to champion “our Liberal interests” or “our Labor interests”. Finally, providing evidence for H4, shared self- categorization moderated the relationship between leader collective identity advancement and followership such that a leader’s advancement of collective interests was only related to an intention to vote for that leader when the leader was advancing the collective interests of a group that followers regarded as self-defining.
It is also noteworthy that there was a correlation between leader group membership and the sub-component of authentic leadership, relational transparency, indicating that overall the Labor leader (Kevin Rudd) was seen as more relationally transparent than the Liberal leader (Tony Abbott). This finding may reflect general views of the Australian public.
Nevertheless, given that the size of this correlation was weak (r = 0.13) and there were no general differences between the two leaders in any of the other three sub-components of authentic leadership, we would encourage caution in interpreting differential perceptions of authentic leadership displayed by the two leaders.
Notably, even though we focus on authentic leadership as a general factor, more generally we believe that contextual variations in the sub-components of authentic leadership are worthy of further investigations. For instance, inspection of the effects concerning separate sub-dimensions of authentic leadership suggests that the effects of championing collective interests on relational transparency and internalized moral perspective may be particularly pronounced and future research might examine other contexts in which championing collective interests may have differential impact on sub-dimensions of authentic leadership. COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 28
General Discussion
While theory and research have substantially enriched our knowledge of various positive consequences that flow from followers perceiving leaders to be authentic, little work has investigated the factors that feed into such perceptions (Fields, 2007; Gardner et al.,
2011). The present research sought to address this issue in an experiment and a field survey examining whether, and to what extent, a leaders’ championing of the collective interests of the group that they are leading influences followers’ perceptions of authentic leadership and their eagerness to follow. More particularly, drawing on self-categorization theory (Ellemers,
2012; Turner et al., 1987, 1994), we sought to test the proposition that the link between collective interests and authentic leadership would be contingent on followers’ membership in the collective whose interests the leader was championing.
Findings across both studies provided strong support for our hypotheses. Results indicated that followers regard leaders to be more authentic to the degree that they are seen to be acting as advocates of the collective that they lead (supporting H1). Moreover, leaders’ championing of collective interests translates into people’s willingness to follow them
(supporting H2) as reflected in their support for the leader’s proposal (Study 1) and in their willingness to vote for the leader at the ballot box (Study 2). Furthermore, results show that shared self-categorization between leader and follower acts as a moderating condition of these relationships. More specifically, leaders’ championing of collective interests has a stronger relationship with authentic leadership when leaders are affiliated with the group that respondents see as self-defining (rather than with a different group; H3). This moderating impact of shared self-categorization is even stronger for followership (H4) such that, when leaders champion collective interests, they only engender followership to the extent that this same collective forms the basis for followers’ own sense of self. COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 29
Implications for Theory and Practice
The present findings have a number of important theoretical and practical implications for leadership and followership. First, they complement a plethora of research which has provided strong evidence of the positive impact that perceived authentic leaders have on followers and organizations at large (for a review, see Gardner et al., 2011). In this regard, the present research complements recent research that has started to identify factors that underpin perceptions of authentic leadership (e.g., Peus et al., 2012; Weischer et al.,
2013; Williams et al., 2012) but also extends this work by pointing to the importance of leaders’ relationship with a collective self (“we” and “us”) in shaping such perceptions (Day,
Gronn, & Salas, 2006; Ellemers et al., 2004; Hogg et al., 2012; Reicher et al., 2005; Subašić et al., 2011; van Knippenberg 2011; Yammarino, Salas, Serban, Shirreffs, & Shuffler, 2012).
In particular, our findings suggest that it is when followers regard leaders as championing the interests of the social group they are leading that they regard these leaders to be true and authentic.
Second, by demonstrating that shared group membership between leader and follower qualifies the relationship between leaders’ championing of collective interests and perceptions of authentic leadership, our findings support the claim that authentic leadership has an important collective dimension (cf. Gill & Caza, 2015). Along these lines, findings underscore Haslam and colleagues’ (2001, 2011) assertion that for leaders to be successful in influencing followers, they need to act as (social) identity champions by promoting the collective interests of their group rather than those of other groups or themselves as individuals (see also Haslam & Platow, 2001; Giessner et al., 2013; Steffens et al., 2014; van
Dick, Hirst, Grojean, & Wieseke, 2007; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). Indeed, our findings suggest that while leaders’ orientation towards higher-order interests enhances COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 30 perceptions of their authentic leadership, they are regarded as particularly authentic when they are seen to be advocates of a collective identity that followers share with them.
Expanding upon the previous points, our findings have broader implications for the
(complex) conceptualization of authentic leadership that previous research has alluded to but that thus far has received relatively little attention. In particular, the present findings enrich the current debate about whether or not authentic leadership is appropriately conceptualized in terms of a higher-order model (Gardner et al., 2011; Neider & Schriesheim, 2011). In the present research we followed Credé and Harms’ (2015) comprehensive guidelines for evaluating the support for (vs. against) the appropriateness of higher-order models. Results showed overall stronger support for (rather than against) a higher-order model of authentic leadership. This has implications for the measurement of authentic leadership (where there may be value in interpreting authentic leadership at a higher, global level) as well as broader theory and practice (whether there may be value in conceptualizing and training authentic leadership as a unified construct that is comprised of inter-related, lower-level dimensions).
Moreover, it is noteworthy that previous research has shown that authentic leadership
(and perceptions of it) derive in part from uncovering and enacting a true self that is (more or less) explicitly understood to be one’s personal self (Ladkin & Taylor, 2010; Shamir &
Eilam, 2005; Sparrowe, 2005; Waite, McKinney, Smith, & Meloy, 2014). While this may certainly be true, the present findings suggest that a complementary but less obvious pathway to authentic leadership may be found through leaders’ enactment of a collective self
(Ellemers, 2012; Haslam, 2001; Hogg & Terry, 2001; Reicher et al., 2010; see also Gardner et al., 2005). Indeed, as much as leaders need to be true to themselves as individuals (“I”), so too it appears they need to be true to ourselves as members of a group (“us”).
These findings also have important practical implications for the training and development of authentic leaders. Specifically, findings point to the somewhat counter- COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 31 intuitive possibility that for leaders to cultivate authenticity, they need not only to look inward with the aim of furthering their understanding of their personal self but also to look outward to other people with the aim of attempting to better understand the social self, and what it is that unites people as members of a collective (e.g., in ways discussed by Haslam et al., 2011; Peters, Haslam, Ryan, & Steffens, 2014). This in turn should then allow leaders to be better equipped to promote those interests and concerns that speak to the group for whom they are responsible (and to recognize situations in which being true to oneself and to the group are at odds).
Third, our findings suggest that followers’ perceptions of authentic leadership may in some circumstances diverge from their followership of a leader. Specifically, the factor that accounted for this divergence in the present research was shared self-categorization, with findings indicating that while championing collective interests was a path to authentic leadership, championing (“our”) shared interests was critical for followership. Adding to research suggesting that leaders who act (and are seen to act) in an authentic manner may not necessarily be ethical (Algera & Lips-Wiersma, 2012), it thus appears that leaders who are authentic will not necessarily energize followers (Diddams & Chang, 2012; see also Eagly,
2005, for an analysis of authentic leadership in the case of female leaders). In sum, then, it appears that increasing leader authenticity will not inevitably spill over into follower enthusiasm. For followership depends on a leader being seen as true to his or her self and at the same time on followers seeing themselves as connected to the cause and perspective that the leader’s self represents. It follows that a leader who is very authentic may fail to encourage positive outcomes and perhaps even encourage negative outcomes when followers feel disconnected from the self that the leader is being true to. COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 32
Limitations and Future Research
The present research is not without limitations. First, despite the fact that across the two studies CFA results indicated stronger support for (rather than against) a higher-order model of authentic leadership, results revealed some level of model misspecification (as indicated by a significant chi-square), which suggests that estimates could be biased (Kline,
2015). There may thus be value in attempts to further improve the measurement of authentic leadership. Furthermore, in Study 1 we manipulated leaders’ championing of collective, rather than personal, interests, while in Study 2 we assessed explicitly the extent to which leaders were championing collective interests, but did not assess the extent to which they were also seen to be advancing personal interests or those of other alternative groups. Future research could more fruitfully investigate the consequences of varying the degree to which leaders’ championing of collective interests is seen to be aligned or in conflict with their championing of personal interests or the interests associated with other entities (e.g., their gender; Hall & Donaghue, 2013; or their job and organization; Endrissat, Müller, & Kaudela-
Baum, 2007). Future work might, for instance, independently manipulate leaders’ advancement of personal and collective interests with the aim of generating a better understanding of their combined impact on authentic leadership perceptions and followership. We acknowledge too that followership can be operationalized in a number of different ways. Accordingly, future research should explore additional manifestations of followership beyond the present operationalization in terms of supporting a leader’s proposal and voting intentions for a leader.
Moreover, previous research has pointed to the role of knowledge and understanding of the personal self in authentic leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Peus et al., 2012) and in future research it would be interesting to shed light on the interplay between knowledge of personal self and of collective self (see also Hornsey & Jetten, 2004; Postmes & Jetten, 2006; COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 33
Reynolds et al., 2010). Here it is worth emphasizing that we do not see knowledge of the collective self (such as knowledge about collective norms, goals, ideals or advancement of shared interests) and of the personal self as necessarily mutually exclusive but believe that both may influence perceptions of authentic leadership. In this regard, the independent and interactive influence of these two forms of self-knowledge would seem to be an important focus for future research.
More generally, as we argued throughout the paper, the present research points to the importance of core questions about the nature of self that in turn have important implications for our understanding of authenticity (Reicher et al., 2010; Postmes & Branscombe, 2010;
Turner & Reynolds, 2001; Turner et al., 1987, 1994). In particular, this is because, as we have shown, the need for a leader to be “true to self” is predicated upon a logically prior question of exactly which aspects of self they need to be true to. In this regard, future research might also explore additional links between other ideas formulated within the social identity approach (e.g., leader prototypicality) and ideas outlined by authentic leadership theory. Moreover, if, as self-categorization theorizing suggests, a person’s sense of self is fluid and context-dependent (e.g., Doosje, Haslam, Spears, Oakes, & Koomen, 1998; Elsbach
& Kramer, 1996; Haslam & Turner, 1992; Hopkins & Kahani-Hopkins, 2009; Hopkins &
Reicher, 1997; van Rijswijk, Haslam, & Ellemers, 2006) then it would appear that leaders' desire to be authentic should itself be informed by an appreciation of this fluidity (see also similar arguments emphasizing the complex multi-faceted notion of the self informed by object relations theory; Ford & Harding, 2011). In this regard too, it would be worthwhile investigating contextual variations whereby championing collective interests may have differential impact on individual sub-components of authentic leadership. Taking these ideas forward, future research that sheds light on the nature of contextual variation in (effective) COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 34 leaders’ sense of self clearly has the capacity to provide us with more comprehensive insight into the dynamic nature of authentic leadership.
Finally, future research could productively theorize and examine the relationships between leaders’ championing of collective interests and other related theories such as ethical leadership (Brown, & Treviño, 2006; Yukl, Mahsud, Hassan, & Prussia, 2013), servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1977; Liden, Panaccio, Meuser, Hu, & Wayne, 2014; Liden, Wayne,
Zhao, & Henderson, 2008) and leader–member exchange theories (Dulebohn, Bommer,
Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, 2012; Graen, & Uhl-Bien, 1995). These theories do not focus on leaders’ engagement with followers as part of collectives but rather as individual followers at the dyadic level. In this regard, we lack detailed understanding of the factors that lead to correspondence or divergence between leaders’ championing of interests at the group and dyadic level and the unique and overlapping consequences of either of these. Along these lines, it would be interesting to examine the contexts in which leaders’ championing of group interests (at the collective level) also serves to enhance perceptions of them as servant leaders
(see also Gillet, Cartwright, & van Vugt, 2011) and foster good relationships with followers
(at the dyadic level; Uhl-Bien, 2006), as well as the associated consequences for followership. Moreover, future work might also examine the extent to which the relationship between a leader’s championing of collective interests and authentic leadership become more pronounced to the extent that (a) followers experience themselves as having a good (rather than poor) dyadic relationship with the leader (Steffens et al., 2014; Uhl-Bien, 2006) and (b) there is distance between leaders and followers such that followers are making abstract indirect judgments (rather than direct evaluations) of leaders (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002).
Conclusion
The present research expands upon previous research by exploring factors that relate to followers’ perceptions of authentic leadership, perceptions that previous work has shown COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 35 to be crucial for effective leadership. Specifically, the current findings show that beliefs about authentic leadership are contingent on leaders being seen to champion interests of the collective they lead (rather than their personal interests or those of other groups). Moreover, underscoring the importance of the collective self for authentic leadership, findings demonstrate that such beliefs are further shaped by followers’ categorization of themselves and the leader in terms of shared collective identity — such that they have an aligned sense of who “we” are and what “we” stand for. In this way, it appears that would-be followers come to see leaders as authentic as a function of those leaders’ enactment not only of their personal self but also of their collective self. Indeed, the main lesson to emerge from the present research is that if leaders fail to represent and advance a collective self that is shared with followers, they are not only less likely to come across as authentic, but are also less likely to inspire followership. COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 36
Footnotes
1. If results are analyzed at the level of lower-order factors industry, self-awareness,
relational transparency, internalized moral perspective, and balanced processing, the
pattern of results is largely identical. Condition had a marginally significant effect on self-
awareness, F(1,71)=3.74, p=.057, MD=.47, 95%CIs [–.01, .95], and significant effects on
relational transparency, F(1,71)=5.63, p=.020, MD=.67, 95%CIs [.11, 1.24], internalized
moral perspective, F(1,71)=5.18, p=.026, MD=.59, 95%CIs [.07, 1.10], and balanced
processing, F(1,71)=4.56, p=.036, MD=.44, 95%CIs [.03, .85].
2. If these four sub-dimensions are analyzed separately, patterns are largely identical. Self-
awareness is predicted by leader collective identity advancement, b=.43, 95%CIs
[.33, .52], SE=.05, β=.39, p<.001, shared self-categorization, b=1.14, 95%CIs [.94, 1.33],
SE=.10, β=.452, p<.001, and the two-way interaction, b=.30, 95%CIs [.07, .52], SE=.12,
β=.13, p=.012. Relational transparency is predicted by leader collective identity
advancement, b=.38, 95%CIs [.28, .49], SE=.06, β=.33, p<.001, shared self-
categorization, b=1.25, 95%CIs [1.04, 1.47], SE=.11, β=.54, p<.001, and the two-way
interaction, b=.42, 95%CIs [.17, .67], SE=.13, β=.18, p=.001. Internalized moral
perspective is predicted by leader collective identity advancement, b=.41, 95%CIs
[.32, .51], SE=.05, β=.40, p<.001, shared self-categorization, b=.99, 95%CIs [.79, 1.18],
SE=.10, β=.47, p<.001, and the two-way interaction, b=.26, 95%CIs [.02, .49], SE=.12,
β=.12, p=.031. Balanced processing is predicted by leader collective identity
advancement, b=.31, 95%CIs [.22, .40], SE=.05, β=.30, p<.001, shared self-
categorization, b=1.25, 95%CIs [1.06, 1.44], SE=.10, β=.60, p<.001, and only marginally
significantly by the two-way interaction, b=.20, 95%CIs [–.02, .43], SE=.11, β=.10,
p=.070. COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 37
3. Although we neither hypothesized, nor theorized about, distinct patterns depending on
followers’ particular self-categorization (i.e., whether they were Liberal or Labor self-
identifiers) or the particular leader that they responded to (i.e., the leader of the Liberal or
Labor party), it would be possible to theorize about the distinct meanings and
consequences of either form of self-categorization and thus to treat these as distinct
variables (e.g., by elaborating on meaning and consequences associated with leadership
and followership of a particular party; see also Reicher & Hopkins, 2001). However, if
these two are examined separately and the data is analyzed as a function of the three
factors: followers’ self-categorization (coded as 0 and 1 for Liberal and Labor self-
identifiers, respectively), leaders’ social category membership (coded as 0 and 1 for
Liberal and Labor leader, respectively), and leader collective identity advancement as
continuous predictor, results are identical for followers who self-categorized as Liberal
and Labor (i.e., as one might expect the three-way interaction has significant effects on
both DVs in consistent patterns). In light of this, as well as to provide a direct test of our
hypotheses and to keep the present analyses as simple as possible, we therefore collapsed
followers’ self-categorization and leader social category membership into the single
factor shared self-categorization in line with the theoretical logic outlined in the
Introduction. COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 38
Appendix
To assess the factor structure of authentic leadership, we adopted Credé and Harms’
(2015) recent comprehensive guidelines for testing and interpreting evidence in support of
(versus against) the appropriateness of higher-order models. Credé and Harms recommend providing five different forms of evidence that relate to the ability of the Higher-Order Model
(HOM) to: (a) reproduce the observed covariation among manifest variables (items), (b) reproduce the observed covariation among manifest variables better than more parsimonious alternative models and not worse than less parsimonious alternative models, (c) reproduce the observed covariation among the lower-order factors, (d) account for variation in lower-order factors, and (e) explain variation in manifest variables. They also provide in-depth guidelines concerning the procedure and analyses to run to examine the evidence for each of these aspects. In what follows, we followed their procedure and describe the results step-by-step for Study 1 and Study 2.
Study 1
First, we inspected the HOM’s ability to reproduce the covariances among manifest variables (items) by examining the chi-square (χ2) statistic. As recommended, we also examined the global fit indices: RMSEA, CFI, and SRMR (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen,
2008). In interpreting these global fit indices we followed Credé and Harms’ recommendations to report global fit indices but not to use cutoff values that have been proposed for the reasons that “not only are these cutoff values relatively arbitrary but they were also not developed for use with HOMs” (p. 848). Credé and Harms recommend reporting and then interpreting the chi-square statistic and global fit indices such that a better model fit is indicated ideally by a non-significant chi-square (or low chi-square in relation to degrees of freedom), high values for CFI, and low values for both RMSEA and SRMR and then by interpreting fit primarily on the basis of the chi-square and then the conglomeration COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 39 of all global fit indices. Results concerning the HOM and alternative models are presented in
Table 2.
As shown in Table 2, examination of the HOM indicated a significant χ2, suggesting that there was some misspecification. Moreover, in this model the error variance related to one lower-order factor (balanced processing) was estimated to be negative (a ‘Haywood case’, which is not possible but is a recognized problem in estimation of parameters in structural equation modeling; McDonald, 1985). This can have multiple causes (e.g., low accuracy in estimation) but is generally the result of some level of model misspecification.
Following guidelines to solve this improper estimation (for a discussion of different solutions, see Gerbing & Anderson, 1987), we thus included a second HOM, in which the error variance for this lower-order factor was pre-determined as having a small positive value of .001, and which was the baseline model for all further examinations. The χ2 of this HOM was also significant indicating some level of misspecification. At the same time, the χ2/df was
1.88 suggesting that the model fit was reasonable. Moreover, the global fit indices indicated marginal or marginal-to-moderate fit of the model to the data.
Second, we compared the fit of the HOM with theoretically plausible alternative models by using the sequential chi-square difference test. We tested the HOM against the four other models: (a) the “orthogonal first-order model” (OrthFOM, which is more parsimonious than the HOM), (b) the “single-factor model” (SFM, another more parsimonious model), (c) the “oblique lower-order model” (OblLOM, a less parsimonious model), and (d) the “bi-factor model” (BFM, another less parsimonious model). Estimation of the bi-factor model generated three negative error variances (for the ALI items 4, 9, 10), and we thus specified a second bi-factor model in which these three error variances were predetermined to have a small positive value of .001. This model was used as the comparison model in Step 2. COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 40
Credé and Harms (2015) point out that the HOM should ideally have better fit than
OrthFOM and SFM. Moreover, the HOM should ideally not have worse fit than the less parsimonious models OblLOM and BFM. The chi-squares for all alternative models were significant, suggesting some level of misspecification for each model. Moreover, the global fit indices for all alternative models did not indicate better model fit than for the HOM, but either similar or worse absolute fit. Overall, this indicates support for a higher-order factor but also some level of misspecification.
As shown in Table 2, the chi-square difference test indicated that the HOM had better fit than the more parsimonious models OrthFOM and SFM, providing support for a higher- order factor. Moreover, the HOM fitted the data worse than the OblLOM (providing no support for a higher-order factor) but better than the BFM (providing support for a higher- order factor). Overall, this set of evidence provides mixed support for a higher-order factor.
Third, we inspected the model’s ability to reproduce covariances among first-order
2 2 2 2 factors by computing the effect size target coefficient (TC) = (χ OrthFOM – χ HOM) / (χ OrthFOM – χ
OblLOM) that indicates the proportion of the covariation among the lower-order factors that can be accounted for by the higher-order factor. The very high TC value of .978 indicated that almost all the covariation among the lower-order factors was explained by the higher-order factor (which is higher than the TC of .94 revealed in the worked example by Credé and
Harms). This provides support for a higher-order model.
Fourth, we examined the ability of the HOM to explain variation in lower-order factors by calculating the average variance extracted (AVE) that indicates the amount of variance in the lower-order factors that can be accounted for by the higher-order factor. The
AVE is calculated by the sum of the squared loadings of the lower-order factors onto the higher-order factor, which is then divided by that same sum, plus the sum of the error variance of the lower-order factors. Support for a higher-order model is indicated if the factor COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 41 loadings are high and uniform across the lower-order factors. The loadings of the lower-order factors onto the higher-order factor for the factors relational transparency, internalized moral perspective, balanced processing, and self-awareness were all high, with values .962, .900, .999, and .933. These loadings provide support for a higher-order factor.
Providing further support for a general factor, an AVE of .902 was above the recommended value of .50 and indicated that almost all the variation in the lower-order factors was explained by the higher-order factor. Overall, this evidence supports a general factor.
Fifth, we examined the ability of the higher-order factor to explain variation in manifest variables by inspecting the amount of variance in manifest variables that is explained by the high-order factor in terms of (a) the average of these values across the items and (b) their range. For each manifest variable, the proportion of variance that is accounted for by the higher-order factor is given by the squared loading of an item onto the lower-order factor multiplied by the squared loading of the respective lower-order factor onto the higher- order factor. The average amount of variance in manifest variables that was attributable to the higher-order factor was .387 (Min = .226; Max = .537). This value is higher than .24 (which one would expect on the basis of the rule-of-thumb that factor loadings should be at least or greater than .70; Kolenikov, 2009) and also higher than values reported in other studies finding support for a higher-order model (.22; see Hoffman, Lance, Bynum, & Gentry, 2010), providing support for a higher-order model. In sum, the five sets of evidence for (versus against) a higher-order model provided more support for than against a higher-order model of authentic leadership.
Study 2
As in Study 1, we followed the procedure and analyses recommended by Credé and
Harms (2015) to examine the evidence for (versus against) a higher-order factor. Estimation of the higher-order model (HOM) generated one negative error variance for the lower-order COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 42 factor self-awareness. A second HOM was modelled, in which this error variance was specified to have a small positive value of .001, and which was the basis of subsequent analyses. Modelling the BFM also estimated one negative error variance for the ALI item 2.
A second BFM was modelled, in which this error variance was pre-determined to have a small negative value of .001, and which was then used for further inspection in Step 2. Fit statistics and model comparison statistics for the HOM and alternative models are presented in Table 5.
First, inspection of the fit statistics of the HOM indicated a significant chi-square indicating some level of misspecification. The χ2/df and the global fit indicated marginal-to- moderate fit of the data to the model. The chi-squares for the alternative models were also significant, indicating some level of misfit for these models. Overall, the global fit for the alternative models indicated poor fit (for the OrthFOM) or marginal-to-moderate fit (for the
SFM, OblLOM, and BFM). Overall, Step 1 indicated some support for a higher-order model but also suggested that there was some level of misspecification.
Second, as shown in Table 5, chi-square difference tests comparing the HOM with the alternative models indicated that the HOM fitted the data significantly better than the more parsimonious alternative models (OrthFOM and SFM), supporting a higher-order factor.
Furthermore, the HOM did not have worse fit than the less parsimonious model OblLOM
(supporting a higher-order factor) but it did have worse fit than the BFM (providing no support for a higher-order factor). In sum, this set of evidence provides mixed support for a higher-order factor. At the same time, both the HOM and the BFM would suggest a general
(authentic leadership) factor (with different interpretations of the components that lie beyond the scope of the present paper; see Reise, Moore, & Haviland, 2010; Credé & Harms, p.866).
Third, a high TC of .994 indicated that almost all the covariation among the lower- order factors was accounted for by the higher-order factor (a value that is higher than the TC COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 43 of .94 revealed in Credé and Harms’, 2015, the worked example). This set of evidence supports a general model.
Fourth, the lower-order factor loadings onto the higher-order factor for the factors relational transparency, internalized moral perspective, balanced processing, and self- awareness were high with values .981, .945, .991, and .999, providing support for a higher- order factor. Furthermore, the average variance extracted (AVE) of .961 was above the value of .50 recommended by Credé and Harms (2015) and indicated that almost all the variation in the lower-order factors was attributable to the higher-order factor. Overall, Step 4 provides support for a general factor.
Finally, fifth, the average amount of variance in manifest variables that was accounted for by the higher-order factor was .678 (Min = .485; Max = .817). This value was higher than
.24 (which one would expect if the factor loadings were at least as high as the rule-of-thumb minimum of .70; Kolenikov, 2009) and higher than the value found in other studies (e.g., by
Hofman et al., 2010, and in the worked example provided by Credé and Harms, 2015). In sum, this set of evidence supports a higher-order factor. Overall, results across the sets of tests provide stronger support for than against a higher-order model of authentic leadership. COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 44
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA US: Sage Publications.
Algera, P. M., & Lips-Wiersma, M. (2012). Radical authentic leadership: Co-creating the
conditions under which all members of the organization can be authentic. The Leadership
Quarterly, 23, 118-131.
Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. (2002). Leader distance: A review and a proposed theory. The
Leadership Quarterly, 13, 673-704.
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An
examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34, 325-374.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 20-39.
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., 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.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational
leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181-217.
Bennis, W. (1999). The end of leadership: Exemplary leadership is impossible without full
inclusion, initiatives, and co-operation of followers. Organizational Dynamics, 28, 71-79.
Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Meindl, J. R. (2004). Charisma under crisis: Presidential
leadership, rhetoric, and media responses before and after the September 11th terrorist
attacks. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 211-239.
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 45
The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595-616.
Clapp-Smith, R., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Avey, J. B. (2009). Authentic leadership and
positive psychological capital the mediating role of trust at the group level of
analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15, 227-240.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ, US:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand
Oaks, CA US: Sage Publications.
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, 475-493.
Credé, M., & Harms, P. D. (2015). 25 years of higher‐order confirmatory factor analysis in
the organizational sciences: A critical review and development of reporting
recommendations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 845-872.
Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25, 7–29.
Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2006). Leadership in team-based organizations: On the
threshold of a new era. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 211-216.
Diddams, M., & Chang, G. C. (2012). Only human: Exploring the nature of weakness in
authentic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 593-603.
Doosje, B., Haslam, S. A., Spears, R., Oakes, P. J., & Koomen, W. (1998). The effect of
comparative context on central tendency and variability judgements and the evaluation of
group characteristics. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 173-184.
Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-
analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange integrating the past COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 46
with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38, 1715-1759.
Eagly, A. H. (2005). Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender
matter? The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 459-474.
Ellemers, N. (2012). The group self. Science, 336, 848-852.
Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D., & Haslam, S. A. (2004). Motivating individuals and groups at
work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Academy of
Management Review, 29, 459-478.
Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Members’ responses to organizational identity
threats: Encountering and countering the Business Week rankings. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 41, 442-476.
Endrissat, N., Müller, W. R., & Kaudela-Baum, S. (2007). En route to an empirically-based
understanding of authentic leadership. European Management Journal, 25, 207-220.
Fields, D. L. (2007). Determinants of follower perceptions of a leader’s authenticity and
integrity. European Management Journal, 25, 195-206.
Ford, J., & Harding, N. (2011). The impossibility of the ‘true self’ of authentic leadership.
Leadership, 7, 463-479.
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). “Can you
see the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The
Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343-372.
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,
1120-1145.
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1987). Improper solutions in the analysis of covariance
structures: Their interpretability and a comparison of alternate respecification.
Psychometrika, 52, 99-111. COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 47
George, B. (2007). True north: Discover your authentic leadership. San Francisco: Wiley.
Giallonardo, L. M., Wong, C. A., & Iwasiw, C. L. (2010). Authentic leadership of preceptors:
Predictor of new graduate nurses' work engagement and job satisfaction. Journal of
Nursing Management, 18, 993-1003.
Giessner, S. R., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W., & Sleebos, E. (2013). Team-oriented
leadership: The interactive effects of leader group prototypicality, accountability, and team
identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 658-667.
Gill, C., & Caza, A. (2015). An investigation of authentic leadership’s individual and group
influences on follower responses. Journal of Management, Advance online publication.
doi: 10.1177/0149206314566461.
Gillet, J., Cartwright, E., & van Vugt, M. (2011). Selfish or servant leadership? Evolutionary
predictions on leadership personalities in coordination games. Personality and Individual
Differences, 51, 231-236.
Globalpost (2010). Retrieved 12 April 2016 from
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/asia/101220/interview-burma-myanmar-aung-san-
suu-kyi.
Graf, M. M., Schuh, S. C., Van Quaquebeke, N., & van Dick, R. (2012). The relationship
between leaders’ group-oriented values and follower identification with and endorsement
of leaders: The moderating role of leaders’ group membership. Journal of Business
Ethics, 106, 301-311.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership:
Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years:
Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power
and greatness. Paulist Press, New York. COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 48
Guardian (2015). Retrieved 09 June 2015 from: http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/
2015/feb/03/how-giving-prince-philip-a-knighthood-left-australias-pm-fighting-for-
survival.
Hall, L. J., & Donaghue, N. (2013). ‘Nice girls don't carry knives': Constructions of ambition
in media coverage of Australia's first female prime minister. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 52, 631-647.
Haslam, S. A. (2001/2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach.
London & Thousand Oaks, CA US: Sage.
Haslam, S. A., Turner, J. C. (1992). Context-dependent variation in social stereotyping 2: The
relationship between frame of reference, self-categorization and accentuation. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 251-277.
Haslam, S. A., & Platow, M. J. (2001). The link between leadership and followership: How
affirming social identity translates vision into action. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 27, 1469-1479.
Haslam, S. A., Platow, M. J., Turner, J. C., Reynolds, K. J., McGarty, C., Oakes, P. J., et al.
(2001). Social identity and the romance of leadership: The importance of being seen to be
'doing it for us'. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 4, 191-205.
Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Platow, M. J. (2011). The new psychology of leadership:
Identity, influence and power. London & New York: Psychology Press.
Hoffman, B., Lance, C. E., Bynum, B., & Gentry, W. A. (2010). Rater source effects are alive
and well after all. Personnel Psychology, 63, 119-151.
Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 5(3), 184-200.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (Eds.) (2001). Social identity processes in organizational
contexts. New York US: Psychology Press. COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 49
Hogg, M. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Rast III, D. E. (2012). The social identity theory of
leadership: Theoretical origins, research findings, and conceptual
developments. European Review of Social Psychology, 23, 258-304.
Hollander, E. P. (1992). The essential interdependence of leadership and followership.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 71-75.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines
for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53-60.
Hopkins, N., & Kahani‐Hopkins, V. (2009). Reconceptualizing extremism and moderation:
From categories of analysis to categories of practice in the construction of collective
identity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 99-113.
Hopkins, N. & Reicher, S. D. (1997). Social movement rhetoric and the social psychology of
collective action: A case study of anti-abortion mobilization. Human Relations, 50, 261-
286.
Hornsey, M. J., & Jetten, J. (2004). The individual within the group: Balancing the need to
belong with the need to be different. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 248-
264.
Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership
process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30, 96-
112.
Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic
well-being: Understanding leader–follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 373-
394.
Jensen, S. M., & Luthans, F. (2006). Relationship between entrepreneurs' psychological
capital and their authentic leadership. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18, 254-273.
Jetten, J., Duck, J., Terry, D. J., & O’Brien, A. (2002). Being attuned to intergroup COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 50
differences in mergers: The role of aligned leaders for low-status groups. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1194-1201.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership:
empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 246-255.
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New
York: Guilford Press.
Kolenikov, S. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis using cfa. The Stata Journal, 9, 329-373.
Ladkin, D., & Taylor, S. S. (2010). Enacting the ‘true self’: Towards a theory of embodied
authentic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 64-74.
Liden, R. C., Panaccio, A., Meuser, J. D., Hu, J., & Wayne, S. (2014). 17 Servant leadership:
Antecedents, processes, and outcomes. The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and
Organizations, 357-379.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership:
Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership
Quarterly, 19, 161-177.
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership development. In K. S. Cameron, J.
E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a
new discipline (pp. 241–261). San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler.
McDonald, R.P. (1985). Factor analysis and related methods. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
McGarty, C., Haslam, S. A., Hutchinson, K. J., & Turner, J. C. (1994). The effects of salient
group memberships on persuasion. Small Group Research, 25, 267-293.
Nanda, B. R., & Nanda, B. R. (1985). Gandhi and his critics. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Neider, L. L., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2011). The Authentic Leadership Inventory (ALI):
Development and empirical tests. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1146-1164. COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 51
New York Times (2001). Retrieved 09 June 2015 from: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/09/
nyregion/a-nation-challenged-588679.html
Peters, K., Haslam, S. A., Ryan, M. K. & Steffens, N. K. (2014). To lead, ASPIRe: Building
organic organizational identity. In S. Otten, K. van der Zee, & M. B. Brewer (Eds.),
Towards inclusive organizations: Determinants of successful diversity management at
work (pp. 87–107). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Peus, C., Wesche, J. S., Streicher, B., Braun, S., & Frey, D. (2012). Authentic leadership: An
empirical test of its antecedents, consequences, and mediating mechanisms. Journal of
Business Ethics, 107, 331-348.
Platow, M. J., & van Knippenberg, D. (2001). A social identity analysis of leadership
endorsement: The effects of leader ingroup prototypicality and distributive intergroup
fairness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1508-1519.
Platow, M. J., Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Steffens, N. K. (2015). There is no leadership
if no-one follows: Why leadership is necessarily a group process. International Coaching
Psychology Review, 10, 20–37.
Postmes, T., & Branscombe, N. R. (2010). Rediscovering social identity: Key readings. New
York: Psychology Press.
Postmes, T., Haslam, S. A., & Jans, L. (2013). A single‐item measure of social identification:
Reliability, validity, and utility. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 597-617.
Postmes, T., & Jetten, J. (Eds.). (2006). Individuality and the group: Advances in social
identity. Thousands Oaks, CA US: Sage.
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing
interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve
analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448.
Reicher, S. D., Haslam, S. A., & Hopkins, N. (2005). Social identity and the dynamics of COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 52
leadership: Leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of social
reality. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 547-568.
Reicher, S. D., & Hopkins, N. (2001). Self and nation: Categorization, contestation, and
mobilisation. London: Sage.
Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Haslam, S. A. (2010). The social identity approach in social
psychology. Sage Identities Handbook, 45-62.
Reise, S. P., Moore, T. M., & Haviland, M. G. (2010). Bifactor models and rotations:
Exploring the extent to which multidimensional data yield univocal scale scores. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 92, 544–559.
Reynolds, K. J., Turner, J. C., Branscombe, N. R., Mavor, K. I., Bizumic, B., & Subašić, E.
(2010). Interactionism in personality and social psychology: An integrated approach to
understanding the mind and behaviour. European Journal of Personality, 24, 458-482.
Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. (2005). “What's your story?” A life-stories approach to authentic
leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 395-417.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577-594.
Sparrowe, R. T. (2005). Authentic leadership and the narrative self. The Leadership
Quarterly, 16, 419-439.
Steffens, N. K., Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2014). Up close and personal: Evidence that
shared social identity is a basis for the ‘special’ relationship that binds followers to
leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 296-313.
Steffens, N. K., Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., Platow, M. J., Fransen, K., Yang, J., Jetten, J.,
Ryan, M. K., Peters, K. O., & Boen, F. (2014). Leadership as social identity management:
Introducing the Identity Leadership Inventory (ILI) to assess and validate a four-
dimensional model. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 1001-1024. COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 53
Steffens, N. K., Schuh, S. C., Haslam, S. A., Pérez, A., & Dick, R. (2015). ‘Of the group’ and
‘for the group’: How followership is shaped by leaders' prototypicality and group
identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 180-190.
Subašić, E., Reynolds, K. J., Turner, J. C., Veenstra, K. E., & Haslam, S. (2011). Leadership,
power and the use of surveillance: Implications of shared social identity for leaders'
capacity to influence. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 170-181.
Tate, B. (2008). A longitudinal study of the relationships among self-monitoring, authentic
leadership, and perceptions of leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 15, 16-29.
Thomas, G., Martin, R., & Riggio, R. E. (2013). Leading groups: Leadership as a group
process. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16, 3-16.
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social
identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Turner, J. C., & Haslam, S. A. (2001). Social identity, organizations, and leadership. In M. E.
Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 25-65). Mahwah, NJ US:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987).
Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Cambridge, MA, US: Basil
Blackwell.
Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (1994). Self and collective:
Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 454-463.
Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2001). The social identity perspective in intergroup
relations: Theories, themes and controversies. In R. Brown & S. Gaertner (Eds.),
Handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (Vol. 4). Oxford, UK and COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 54
Cambridge, USA: Blackwell.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social
identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349-361.
Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of
leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 654-676.
Ullrich, J., Christ, O., & van Dick, R. (2009). Substitutes for procedural fairness: Prototypical
leaders are endorsed whether they are fair or not. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 235-
244. van Dick, R. (2001). Identification in organizational contexts: Linking theory and research
from social and organizational psychology. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 3, 265-283. van Dick, R., Hirst, G., Grojean, M. W., & Wieseke, J. (2007). Relationships between leader
and follower organizational identification and implications for follower attitudes and
behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 133-150. van Dick, R., & Schuh, S. C. (2010). My boss' group is my group: experimental evidence for
the leader-follower identity transfer. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 31, 551-563. van Dijke, M., & De Cremer, D. (2010). Procedural fairness and endorsement of prototypical
leaders: Leader benevolence or follower control? Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 46, 85–96. van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership
effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90, 25-37. van Knippenberg, D. (2011). Embodying who we are: Leader group prototypicality and
leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1078-1091. COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 55 van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). A social identity model of leadership
effectiveness in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 243–295. van Rijswijk, W., Haslam, S. A., & Ellemers, N. (2006). Who do we think we are? The
effects of social context and social identification on ingroup stereotyping. British Journal
of Social Psychology, 45, 161-174.
Waite, R., McKinney, N., Smith, M. E., & Meloy, F. A. (2014). The embodiment of authentic
leadership. Journal of Professional Nursing, 30, 282-291.
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, 89-126.
Weischer, A. E., Weibler, J., & Petersen, M. (2013). “To thine own self be true”: The effects
of enactment and life storytelling on perceived leader authenticity. The Leadership
Quarterly, 24, 477-495.
Williams, E. A., Pillai, R., Deptula, B., & Lowe, K. B. (2012). The effects of crisis, cynicism
about change, and value congruence on perceptions of authentic leadership and attributed
charisma in the 2008 presidential election. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 324-341.
Wong, C. A., & Cummings, G. G. (2009). The influence of authentic leadership behaviors on
trust and work outcomes of health care staff. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3, 6–23.
Wong, C. A., Spence Laschinger, H. K., & Cummings, G. G. (2010). Authentic leadership
and nurses' voice behaviour and perceptions of care quality. Journal of Nursing
Management, 18, 889-900.
Yammarino, F. J., Salas, E., Serban, A., Shirreffs, K., & Shuffler, M. L. (2012). Collectivistic
leadership approaches: Putting the “we” in leadership science and practice. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 5, 382-402.
Yukl, G., Mahsud, R., Hassan, S., & Prussia, G. E. (2013). An improved measure of ethical COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 56
leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20, 38-48. COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 57
Tables and Figures
Table 1
Study 1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Between Variables
Variable Mean SD 1 2 2.a 2.b 2.c 2.d 3
1. Manipulation Check [Collective Interests] 3.67 1.37 -
2. Authentic Leadershipa 4.02 .93 .51** - - 2.a. Self-Awareness 4.28 1.05 .20 - - 2.b. Relational Transparency 4.08 1.25 .61** .64** - - 2.c. Internalized Moral Perspective 3.92 1.13 .58** .57** .69** - - 2.d. Balanced Information Processing 3.88 .90 .45** .72** .71** .67** -
3. Followership .45 .50 .15 .17 .20 .15 .20 .04 -
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01; N = 73. aAuthentic Leadership comprising its four sub-dimensions; Manipulation check was indicated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) and authentic leadership was indicated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree); Followership was coded as 0 (voting for candidate other than the one suggested by leader) and 1 (voting for candidate as suggested by leader). COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 58
Table 2
Study 1: Confirmatory-Factor Analyses Results Displaying Fit Statistics and Model Comparison Statistics for Higher-Order Model and
Alternative Models of Authentic Leadership
Model χ2 df p χ2/df Δχ2 Δdf p RMSEA [90% CIs] CFI SRMR
Higher-Order Model 137.543 73 <.001 1.884 –– –– –– .111 [.082, .139] .843 .0813
Higher-Order Modela 143.594 74 <.001 1.940 –– –– –– .114 [.086, .142] .831 .0816
More Parsimonious Models
Orthogonal First-Order Model 305.540 77 <.001 3.968 161.946 3 <.001 .203 [.179, .227] .446 .3355
Single-Factor Model 151.418 77 <.001 1.966 7.824 3 .049 .116 [.088, .143] .820 .0832
Less Parsimonious Models
Oblique First-Order Model 133.744 71 <.001 1.884 9.850 3 .020 .111 [.082, .139] .848 .0795
Bi-Factor Modelb 130.438 66 <.001 1.976 13.156 11 .250 .116 [.087, .146] .844 .0768
Note. N = 73; 95% CIs = 90% confidence intervals; All χ2 difference tests involve comparisons with the higher-order model with one error variance that was specified to have a small positive value of .001. a Because the error variance for the lower-order factor balanced processing was estimated to be negative in the original HOM, in the present model the error variance was specified to have a small positive value of .001. b Because three error variances for the three items ALI 4, 9, and 10 were estimated to be negative in the original Bi-Factor model, in the present model the error variances for these three items were specified to have a small positive value of .001. COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 59
Table 3
Study 1: Means (Standard Deviations in Parenthesis), Inferential Statistics, and
Effect Sizes for Authentic Leadership and Followership as a Function of Experimental
Condition
Condition: Leader Championing of Statistics and Effect Size Personal Interests Collective Interests Measure (n = 39) (n = 34) F(1,71) η2 Cohen’s d
Manipulation Check 3.29 (1.49) 4.11 (1.09) 6.95** .01 .63
Authentic Leadership 3.77 (.92) 4.31 (.87) 6.56* .01 .60
Followership 33.33% (13 of 39) 58.82% (20 of 34) χ2 (1, N = 73) = 4.77
Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01. Manipulation check was indicated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) and authentic leadership was indicated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Followership was coded as 0 (voting for candidate other than the one suggested by leader) and 1 (voting for candidate as suggested by leader). COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 60
Table 4
Study 2: Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Between Variables
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 4.a 4.b 4.c 4.d 5 1. Follower Self-Categorizationa .51 .50 - 2. Leader Group Membershipa .50 .50 –.04 - 3. Leader Collective Identity 4.70 1.86 .09 –.06 - Advancement 4. Authentic Leadershipb 2.94 1.02 .05 .05 .66** - 4.a. Self-Awareness 2.93 1.10 .02 .05 .65** - - 4.b. Relational Transparency 2.86 1.16 .05 .13* .61** - .86** - 4.c. Internalized Moral Perspective 3.16 1.04 .05 –.04 .64** - .82** .81** - 4.d. Balanced Information Processing 2.78 1.05 .05 .06 .60** - .90** .89** .81** - 9. Followership 3.62 2.63 –.03 –.05 .59** .81** .76** .77** .72** .78** - Note. * p < .05; ** p < .001. aFollower self-categorization coded as 0 (Liberal self-identifier) and 1 (Labor self-identifier) and leader group membership coded as 0 (Liberal leader) and 1 (Labor leader) were combined into shared vs. non-shared self-categorization for subsequent analyses; bAuthentic Leadership comprising its four sub-dimensions; Leader collective identity advancement and followership (voting intentions) items were indicated on Likert scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree); authentic leadership items were indicated on scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 61
Table 5
Study 2: Confirmatory-Factor Analyses Results Displaying Fit Statistics and Model Comparison Statistics for Higher-Order Model and
Alternative Models of Authentic Leadership
Model χ2 df p χ2/df Δχ2 Δdf p RMSEA [90% CIs] CFI SRMR
Higher-Order Model 309.152 73 <.001 4.235 –– –– –– .113 [.100, .126] .935 .0375
Higher-Order Modela 309.735 74 <.001 4.186 –– –– –– .112 [.099, .125] .935 .0376
More Parsimonious Models
Orthogonal First-Order Model 1488.461 77 <.001 19.331 1178.726 3 <.001 .269 [.257, .281] .610 .5630
Single-Factor Model 345.856 77 <.001 4.492 36.121 3 <.001 .117 [.105, .130] .926 .0422
Less Parsimonious Models
Oblique First-Order Model 303.152 71 <.001 4.270 6.583 3 .086 .113 [.100, .127] .936 .0371
Bi-Factor Modelb 206.784 64 <.001 3.231 102.951 10 <.001 .094 [.080, .108] .961 .0263
Note. N = 73; 95% CIs = 90% confidence intervals; a Because the error variance for the lower-order factor self-awareness was estimated to be negative in the original HOM, in the present model the error variance was specified to have a small positive value of .001. b Because the error variance for ALI item 2 was estimated to be negative in the original bi-factor model, in the present model the error variance was specified to have a small positive value of .001. All χ2 difference tests involve comparisons with the higher-order model with one error variance that was specified to have a small positive value of .001. COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 62
Table 6
Study 2: Hierarchical Regression Analyses For Authentic Leadership and Followership as a Function of Leader Collective Identity
Advancement and Shared Self-Categorization between Follower and Leader
Variable Authentic Leadership Followership (Voting intentions) Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 b b S S b S b S ß t ß t ß t ß t E E [95% CIs] E [95% CIs] E [95% CIs] [95% CIs] Main effects 1. 1. 4. 3. . . 1 . . 1 . . 2 . . 2 Shared Self-Categorization 15 07 31 94 57 09 3.61** 53 09 2.04** 82 16 7.46** 75 15 6.19** [.99, 1.32] [.89, 1.24] [4.00,4.62] [3.65, 4.24] .3 .3 .4 .1 Leader Collective Identity . . 8 . . 6 . . 5 . . 1 8 2 3 4 Advancement 37 04 .98** 31 05 .62** 16 08 .51** 05 08 .72 [.30, .46] [.22, .41] [.28, .59] [–.02, .30]
Two-way interaction .2 1. Shared Self-Categorization X . . 2 . . 7 9 26 Leader Collective Identity Advancement 14 10 .87** 23 17 .46** [.09, .48] [.93, 1.59]
Model df 252 251 251 250 ΔR2 .68** .01** .83** .04** R2 .68** .69** .83** .87** Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01; N=255; Standardized coefficients are reported; Due to missing data, degrees of freedom vary. COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 63
COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 64
5
4.5
4 p i
h 3.5
s Non- r
e Shared_x000d_Self d
a -Categorization e 3 L Shared_x000d_Self c i t
n -Categorization
e 2.5 h t u A 2
1.5
1 Low_x000d_(-1 SD) High_x000d_(+1 SD)
Leader Collective Identity Advancement
Figure 1. Perceived Authentic Leadership as a Function of Leader Collective Identity
Advancement and Shared Self-Categorization between Leader and Follower COLLECTIVE INTERESTS AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP 65
7 ) r e d
a 6 e L
r o f
n 5 o i t Non- n e
t Shared_x000d_Self n
I 4 -Categorization g n
i Shared_x000d_Self t
o -Categorization V 3 (
p i h s r
e 2 w o l l o F 1 Low_x000d_(-1 SD) High_x000d_(+1 SD) Leader Collective Identity Advancement
Figure 2. Followership (Voting Intention for Leader) as a Function of Leader Collective
Identity Advancement and Shared Self-Categorization between Leader and Follower