Validating Measures of Leader Authenticity

Abstract

Using a student sample in a lab setting, we examined the relationships between explicit and implicit self-esteem and two measures of leader authenticity: self-reported authentic leadership as measured by the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) and perceived leader authenticity as reflected in leadership speeches. In addition, we explored the influence of situational cues for an internal versus external focus on measures of leadership authenticity. Explicit and implicit self-esteem related to authentic leadership in predicted directions, but not perceived leader authenticity. ALQ scores were also positively related to perceived leader authenticity and were significantly affected by the situational cues. Results provide support for the construct validity of the ALQ, while also showing that ALQ scores can be influenced by situational cues promoting an internal versus external focus.

Keywords

authentic leadership implicit and explicit self-esteem construct operationalization indirect measures situational influences

As the study of authentic leadership has emerged and gained momentum (for a recent review, see Gardner, Cogliser, Davis, & Dickens, 2011), scholars have confronted a perplexing dilemma in determining how to operationalize the construct (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Endrissat, Muller, & Kaudela-Baum, 2007; Pittinsky & Tyson, 2005; Shamir & Eilam, 2005; Sparrowe, 2005; Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing & Peterson, 2008). Administering a self-report survey of authentic leadership, for example, may produce inflated ratings due to potential impression management and self-deception effects (Paulhus, 1984, 2002; Zerbe & Paulhus, 1987). Even asking other individuals to rate the authenticity of the leader can be problematic since leaders may be able to create the impression that they are authentic, even when they are not (Gardner, Fischer, & Hunt, 2009). Additionally, raters may simply rely on their implicit theories of the leader rather than the leader’s actual behavior (for a review, see Shondrick, Dinh, & Lord, 2010).

Given the perceptual nature of authentic leadership and the inherent difficulties involved in measuring self- and other-perceptions (Atwater, Ostroff, Yammarino, & Fleenor, 1998; Atwater & Yammarino, 1997), different types of measures may be needed. We envision two potential solutions to these measurement challenges. The first solution would be to employ alternate measures of leader authenticity that do not use explicit/conscious self- or other-reports (e.g., implicit, physiological; see Becker, Cropanzano, & Sanfey, 2011; Johnson & Saboe, 2011). The second solution would be to see if the concerns about explicit/conscious self- or other-reports of leader authenticity are valid by comparing these measures to other theoretically related measures that do not solely rely on self-report measures (e.g., construct validation, nomological net expansion; see Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). In the current study, we take the second approach. Specifically, we assess the construct validity of authentic leadership by attempting to expand the concept’s nomological network (see Cronbach & Meehl, 1955).

Our validation of the authentic leadership construct through the expansion of its nomological network is threefold. First, we develop and assess a new, other report measure of perceived leader authenticity that employs trained coders’ assessments of the degree of authenticity reflected in leadership speeches made in response to an ethical dilemma. We proceed to assess the validity of the authentic leadership construct by determining the extent to which scores on our newly created measure of perceived leader authenticity converge with the most commonly adopted self-report measure of authentic leadership, the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ; Walumbwa et al., 2008).

Second, we explore the theoretically proposed connection between implicit/explicit self-esteem and individual (Kernis, 2003; Kernis & Goldman, 2006) and leader (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005) authenticity. Kernis (2003) argued that because people who possess high explicit and implicit self-esteem (i.e., “optimal self-esteem”) are highly aware of and own their personal attributes, thoughts, values, feelings, motives, and beliefs, including their strengths and weaknesses, they are able to remain true to themselves and thereby achieve a high level of authenticity in their daily lives. Building on this argument, Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, et al. (2005) posited that authentic leaders would likewise possess optimal self-esteem. We test this prediction by examining the relationships between explicit/implicit self-esteem and the aforementioned self- and other-report measures of leader authenticity.

Finally, we explore the extent to which contextual factors influence leader displays and other assessments of authenticity. Specifically, we manipulated across three conditions the situational cues participants received prior to composing the leadership speeches they wrote in response to an ethical dilemma. The first condition instructed participants to adhere to an internal focus on personal values, the second focused their attention externally on managing audience impressions, and third served as a control. A comparison across these three treatments was made to assess the potential effects of situational cues for an internal versus external focus on others’ ratings of leader authenticity as well as self-reports of authentic leadership. In summary, our approach builds on and extends prior validity assessments of authentic leadership (e.g., Neider & Schriesheim, 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2008) rather than simply testing if the relationships between implicit/explicit self-esteem, authentic leadership, and situational cues operate in the predicted directions.

The design of the current study is consistent with the recognition among leadership scholars that a wider range of research methods is required to deepen our understanding of leadership phenomena (Antonakis, Cianciolo, & Sternberg, 2004; Bass, 2008; Yukl, 2010). Moreover, it follows directions for future research advocated following an extensive analysis of research published in The Leadership Quarterly over the past decade (Gardner, Lowe, Moss, Mahoney, & Cogliser, 2010). Indeed, consistent with the recommendations advanced by these scholars, the design employs an experimental methodology that includes multiple and alternative measures drawn from the management and social cognition literatures. Additionally, it answers the call made by Gardner et al. (2011) following a review of the authentic leadership literature to further explicate the nomological network for the construct. To do so, we examine the construct and convergent validity of alternative measures of leader authenticity, while simultaneously exploring the influence that situational cues for an internal versus external focus may exert on such measures. As such, this study contributes to the knowledge of authentic leadership processes, while simultaneously expanding the methodological tool kit available to leadership researchers and thereby addressing concerns about an overreliance on survey based methods (Gardner et al., 2010; Gardner et al., 2011).

Our article is organized into four major sections. First, we discuss the theoretical foundations and hypotheses examined in our study. This discussion includes an overview of authentic leadership theory, indirect measures, implicit self-esteem, and the proposed relationships between authentic leadership, implicit/explicit self-esteem, and situational influences. Second, we provide a detailed explanation of the methods employed. Third, we present the results obtained from the tests of our hypotheses. Finally, we discuss the leadership implications of our findings and directions for future research.

Theoretical Foundations and Hypotheses

Authentic Leadership: Definition and Operationalization

In recent years, Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, and associates (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Avolio Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004; Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, et al., 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008) have advanced a conceptualization of authentic leadership that draws heavily on Michael Kernis’s (2003; Kernis & Goldman, 2006) multicomponent model of authenticity (see also Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrang, 2005). Kernis (2003) posited that authenticity involves the following components: (a) self-awareness, (b) unbiased processing, (c) relational orientation, and (d) authentic behavior. Building on Kernis’s conception of authenticity, Walumbwa et al. (2008)

define authentic leadership as a pattern of leader behavior that draws upon and promotes both positive psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate, to foster greater self-awareness, an internalized moral perspective, balanced processing of information, and relational transparency on the part of leaders working with followers, fostering positive self- development. (p. 94)

Furthermore, they draw on and refine Kernis and Goldman’s (2006) multicomponent conception of authenticity to operationalize authentic leadership as being composed of the following four components: (a) self-awareness, (b) balanced processing, (c) relational transparency, and (d) internalized moral perspective.

Self-awareness refers to the ability to understand how one’s view of the self over time interacts with how one makes sense of the world, including insights into one’s strengths and weaknesses. Balanced processing involves recognition that although all humans are biased in their cognitive processing of information, the balance comes from explicit recognition that such biases are operative, while striving to minimize their effects in the pursuit of objectivity. Relational transparency refers to sharing one’s self with others by openly disclosing one’s thoughts, feelings, and relevant information about personal experiences. Kernis’s (2003) behavioral component was renamed internalized moral perspective to reflect the importance of the leader abiding by core ethical values as an internalized form of self-regulation. At present, the primary method whereby scholars operationalize this four-component model of authentic leadership is through the ALQ developed by Walumbwa et al. (2008). There are two versions of ALQ: a self-report version and an other-report version.

Despite the advances made to date in understanding authentic leadership, challenges remain in operationalizing the construct (Gardner et al., 2011). For example, it is not clear to what extent leaders who are perceived to be authentic are truly authentic or merely skilled at self-presentation (Gardner & Cogliser, 2008) or emotional regulation (Gardner et al., 2009). Specifically, an inherent limitation of the other rated version of the ALQ arises from the difficulty others experience in attempting to ascertain if an actor is being “true to the self,” since the “inner self” of another person is not directly observable (Hoyle, Kernis, Leary, & Baldwin, 1999). Furthermore, even if raters can observe the extent to which a leader acts consistently over time, they will often rely on their implicit theories of leadership rather than the leader’s actual behavior in making their assessments (Shondrick et al., 2010). On the other hand, a potential limitation of the self-report version of the ALQ is that it may be susceptible to social desirability biases (Paulhus, 1984, 2002; Zerbe & Paulhus, 1987) since authenticity is assumed to be a desirable quality. Hence, additional research beyond Walumbwa et al.’s (2008) preliminary validation effort is needed to assess the construct validity of the ALQ and extend the nomological network for the authentic leadership construct, as recommended by Gardner et al. (2011).

Toward this end, we developed a new measure of perceived leader authenticity that builds on prior work by Gardner (2003) to serve as an alternative to the other-report version of the ALQ and assess the convergent validity of the self-report version of the ALQ. In an experimental study, Gardner (2003) assessed the effects of two manipulations—strong versus weak leader speech delivery and high versus low levels of ethical leader conduct—on participants’ ratings of leader authenticity. In the current study, we apply the same rating scale to assess the perceived authenticity reflected in leadership speeches that were written by participants to address an ethical dilemma. Consistent with authentic leadership theory (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, et al., 2005; Ilies et al., 2005; Shamir & Eilam, 2005) and research demonstrating the effects of behavioral integrity (i.e., word–deed consistency; Simons, 2002, 2008; Simons, Friedman, Liu, & McLean Parks, 2007), we predict that self-reported authentic leadership will be positively related to other-reported ratings of leader authenticity. That is, because authentic leadership theory (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, et al., 2005) and empirical research (Leroy, Palanski, & Simons, 2012) suggest that authentic leaders exhibit behavioral integrity by engaging in behaviors that are consistent with their espoused values, we expect self-reported authentic leadership to be positively related to the degree of authenticity that others perceive to be reflected in these same leaders’ speeches. Moreover, if self-reports of authentic leadership as measured by the ALQ are tapping into the underlying construct of leader authenticity, then other-reported measures of leader authenticity should follow suit, and vice versa, thereby demonstrating convergent validity. Based on this reasoning, we advance:

Hypothesis 1: Self-reported authentic leadership will be positively related to other-reported perceptions of leader authenticity.

Authenticity and Optimal Self-Esteem

As noted above, Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, and associates (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Avolio et al., 2004; Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, et al., 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008) drew heavily on Michael Kernis’s (2003) arguments regarding the relationships between self-esteem and authenticity to develop their theory of authentic leadership. According to Kernis’s developmental model, once a person is able to attain authenticity through adequate levels of self-awareness, unbiased processing, relational orientation, and authentic behavior, they come to possess “optimal” (secure and high) levels of self-esteem. As such, people with optimal self-esteem accept who they are, including their strengths and weaknesses, and this is reflected in both high explicit and high implicit self-esteem. Although individuals with fragile self-esteem also respond to self-report measures of self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1979) with positive evaluations of the self, their self-esteem tends to crumble when they are confronted with challenges that elicit ego-defensive responses. Consequently, they possess high explicit and low implicit self-esteem. Hence, evidence of a positive relationship between authentic leadership and optimal self-esteem and a negative relationship between authentic leadership and fragile self-esteem would serve to further validate the construct of authentic leadership, while expanding its nomological network (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955).

Indirect Measures

Before moving into a more detailed discussion of implicit and explicit self-esteem and the theory behind using these constructs as proxies for optimal and fragile self-esteem, an understanding of what indirect measures are and how they are used more generally is required. Over the past 20 years, psychologists have developed several creative methods (see Bargh & Chartrand, 2000) in the quest to find alternative ways to examine socially sensitive attitudes and beliefs (e.g., prejudice and stereotypes). Most relevant to the current research is the distinction between direct and indirect measures of attitudes. A direct measure explicitly references the attitude(s) of interest, whereas an indirect measure hides any reference to the actual attitude(s) that is being assessed. To date, dozens of indirect measures have been developed and successfully used in research (for a review, see De Houwer & Moors, 2010).

Indirect measures are thought to tap into the nonconscious components of a person’s mental representations. A mental representation can be defined as “the residue of a lifetime of observations, thought, and experience” (Carlston, 2010, p. 38) that reflect meaningful patterns of activation across the different representational features (Smith, 1996). Those components of a person’s mental representation that may be considered nonconscious or implicit have at least one of the following characteristics: (a) the person is unaware of the mental representation and/or its influence, (b) the mental representation was not intentionally recalled, (c) the effects of the mental representation are uncontrollable, (d) the mental representation is processed using few cognitive resources. Although at least one of these components is necessary for a mental representation to be considered implicit, all mental representations fall along a nonconscious to conscious continuum (see De Houwer, Teige-Mocigemba, Spruyt, & Moors, 2009), with nonconscious representations being more association-based and conscious representations being more rule-based. Furthermore, some types of implicit representations (e.g., verbal and visual systems) can at times be explicit representations depending on the person’s current focal attention. In contrast, other types of implicit representations (e.g., action and affective systems) do not translate well into an explicit form despite the person’s focal attention. Explicit representations, therefore, only consist of the limited amount of concepts that a person is currently focusing on, with a constant blending of implicit and explicit representations making up the stream of consciousness (Carlston, 2010).

Indirect measures of attitudes are based on the assumption that implicit or nonconscious processes can be measured. Support for this assertion is provided by evidence that researchers have been able to establish reliable methods (for a review, see Fazio & Olson, 2003). An important distinction is that the measure itself is not implicit, but the measurement outcome is thought to be implicit or nonconscious. That is the reason why the term indirect measure is used here, instead of the term implicit measure. Depending on the indirect measure adopted, the implicitness may pertain to the stimuli that activate a representation, the representation itself, or how the representation was influenced or had an influence (De Houwer & Moors, 2007).

Researchers are increasingly realizing that no indirect measurement outcome is “process pure”; instead, such measures reside on a continuum from spontaneous to deliberative (Vargas, Sekaquaptewa, & von Hippel, 2007). In fact, the correspondence between indirect and direct (self-report) measurement scores increases as the self-report becomes more spontaneous (Gawronski & LeBel, 2008). In addition, different types of indirect and direct measures correspond to different types of implicit and explicit mental representations that are purported to be measured (e.g., Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2005; Olson, Fazio, & Hermann, 2007; Ranganath, Smith, & Nosek, 2008), with controlled thought being a sufficient but not necessary condition for discrepancies between outcomes of indirect and direct measures to arise (Rydell & McConnell, 2010).

Although indirect methods are often used to measure implicit attitudes, researchers are increasingly finding that implicit attitudes seem to be better understood as “unintentionally activated evaluations of object-centered contexts” (Ferguson & Bargh, 2007, p. 217). Rather than implicit attitudes reflecting individuals’ unmediated evaluations of their world, such attitudes instead depend on a number of different factors (e.g., memories, instructions, moods, active, and chronic goals) that are present at the time of measurement (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2000; Andersen, Moskowitz, Blair, & Nosek, 2007; Ferguson & Bargh, 2003). Hence, an indirect measure may be better conceptualized as a measure of the current relevance of the attitude object as a function of the salient and/or preexisting personal and external factors that are free from the potential obscuring effects of introspective thinking (De Houwer, 2006; Ferguson & Bargh, 2007; Nosek, 2007).

Ultimately, what makes implicit attitudes important is that they have real consequences for thought and behavior above and beyond those attributable to explicit attitudes alone (see Payne & Gawronski, 2010). When explicit and implicit attitudes are divergent, for example, information processing can increase and/or negative affect may arise (Rydell & McConnell, 2010). Our review of implicit self-esteem below provides further evidence of the consequences implicit attitudes can have for people.

Implicit Versus Explicit Self-Esteem

Self-esteem can be defined as the affective part of the self-concept or attitude of the self (Schnabel & Asendorpf, 2010). It is widely known that most people like themselves (Banaji & Prentice, 1994); however, even when someone cannot consciously verbalize this bias for self, it is still there (Aidman & Carroll, 2003; Greenwald & Farnham, 2000). People like various objects more as soon as they own them (Beggan, 1992), prefer letters and numbers that are found in their own name and birthday over other letters and numbers (Kitayama & Karasawa, 1997), and even prefer similar others over nonsimilar others simply because similar others nonconsciously activate positive associations about themselves (Jones, Pelham, Carvallo, &Mirenberg, 2004).

As implied above, recent research trends reveal that implicit or nonconscious processing plays an important role in most psychological processes, including self-esteem (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Wegner & Bargh, 1998). The idea that there are both implicit and explicit components of self-esteem is consistent with recent conceptions of the self as having simultaneously operating subsystems (Zeigler-Hill & Jordan, 2010). Implicit self-esteem can thus be defined as an implicit evaluation of oneself (Dijksterhuis, 2004). Indirect self-esteem measures, therefore, are assumed to reflect a nonconscious effect of self-attitudes on evaluations of self-associated objects (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995).

Consistent with the preceding discussion regarding the measurement of authentic leadership, direct measurements of self-esteem—despite allowing access to personal insights, being quick and easy to administer and interpret, and having good psychometric properties—have noteworthy drawbacks. First, it is not known if people’s responses honestly reflect their feelings about themselves (Paulhus, 1984, 2002; Zerbe & Paulhus, 1987). Second, it is not known if people’s responses reflect true introspective access to all parts of their self-worth. Explicit self-esteem, for example, has been shown to positively relate to direct measures of impression management and self-deception (Zeigler-Hill & Jordan, 2010). As a result, researchers have developed a dozen or so indirect measures of self-esteem that have been successfully used in past studies, even though they have somewhat poor psychometric properties due to many of the issues discussed above. Different contexts, for example, may activate different patterns of associative mental representations of the self, resulting in different self-evaluations (for a review, see Zeigler-Hill & Jordan, 2010).

As is the case for indirect measurement outcomes more generally, what is most significant about outcomes of indirect measures of self-esteem are the real consequences these outcomes have on thoughts and behavior above and beyond those accruing from explicit self-esteem (Bosson, Swann, & Pennebaker, 2000; Koole, Dijksterhuis, & van Knippenberg, 2001). For example, Spalding and Hardin (1999) found that for participants in an interview paradigm, explicit, not implicit, self-esteem predicted their ratings of anxiety, and implicit and explicit self-esteem had independent influences on participants’ self-handicapping. Furthermore, low implicit self-esteem, but not explicit self-esteem, was predictive of stress-induced depression and high implicit self-esteem buffered individuals with low explicit self-worth (Steinberg, Karpinski, & Alloy, 2007; Zeigler-Hill & Terry, 2007), while eliciting greater persistence in the face of failure (see Zeigler-Hill & Jordan, 2010).

The congruence (or lack thereof) between implicit and explicit self-esteem has been shown to also have important psychological effects and has brought some clarity to inconsistent findings concerning the influence of self-esteem on perceptions and behaviors (e.g., Dunning & Cohen, 1992; Taylor & Brown, 1988). Bosson, Brown, Zeigler-Hill, and Swann (2003), Kernis (2003), and Jordan, Spencer, Zanna, Hoshino-Browne, and Correll (2003) have each demonstrated, with very similar paradigms, that people with high explicit, but low implicit self-esteem (fragile self-esteem), display a greater tendency toward self-enhancement than those with high explicit and implicit self-esteem (optimal self-esteem). Other recent findings reveal that individuals with fragile self-esteem are less likely to forgive others, endorse extreme opinions when under intellectual threat, show more unrealistic optimism, and exhibit more distortions of self-threatening information (Bosson et al., 2003; Eaton, Struthers, Shomrony, & Santelli, 2007; Kernis, Lakey, & Heppner, 2008; McGregor & Jordan, 2007). The primary explanation for this pattern of findings is that people with fragile self-esteem outwardly express greater confidence and more positive self-evaluations than they inwardly experience. Hence, they respond to ego-threatening information with defensive behaviors to protect their fragile feelings of self-worth (Kernis, 2003). Importantly, as previously noted, experiencing oneself as authentic, which involves understanding, owning, and acting on the true self (Harter, 2002), is posited to provide the basis for optimal self-esteem (Kernis, 2003; Kernis & Goldman, 2006).

Relationship Between Authentic Leadership and Implicit/Explicit Self-Esteem

Given that the construct of authenticity is an important antecedent to the construct of authentic leadership (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, et al., 2005; Ilies et al., 2005), a truly authentic leader would be one who possesses optimal self-esteem as a developmental result of achieving authenticity. In terms of explicit and implicit self-esteem, it follows that authentic leaders will display a close match between their implicit and explicit self-esteem. In other words, what they say about how they feel about themselves should be closely aligned with how they actually do feel about themselves. However, just having a match between implicit and explicit self-esteem would not provide a sufficient criterion for determining if the leader is truly authentic, given the definition of optimal self-esteem presented above and past research examining the incongruence between implicit and explicit self-esteem. Specifically, as reviewed above, individuals with high explicit, but low implicit self-esteem, display more self-enhancement behaviors, are less likely to forgive others, and exhibit more distortions of self-threatening information than those with high explicit and high implicit self-esteem. Therefore, authentic leaders are expected to possess both high implicit and high explicit self-esteem (i.e., optimal self-esteem). Moreover, we expect fragile self-esteem (high explicit self-esteem and low implicit self-esteem) to be related to relatively low ratings of authentic leadership, since a discrepancy between explicit and implicit self-esteem scores suggests that the individual lacks self-awareness and the propensity for balanced processing of self-related information. Based on the above reasoning, we advance:

Hypothesis 2a: There will be an interaction between explicit and implicit self-esteem such that the highest levels of self-reported authentic leadership will be associated with optimal self-esteem (high implicit and high explicit self-esteem), whereas the lowest will be associated with fragile self-esteem (low implicit and high explicit self-esteem).

Hypothesis 2b: There will be an interaction between explicit and implicit self-esteem such that the highest levels of other reported leader authenticity will be associated with optimal self-esteem and the lowest levels with fragile self-esteem.

Situational Cues for Internal Versus External Focus

Erickson (1995a, 1995b) asserts that rather than existing as an either or condition, the level of authenticity that individuals experience varies along a continuum from relatively low to relatively high levels, depending on internal and situational forces. Although situational influences have not been directly examined in the authentic leadership literature to date, Gardner et al. (2009) posit that contextual dimensions of the environment, including both the omnibus (e.g., organizational and national culture, occupation and industry, organizational structure, time) and discrete (i.e., situational) context (Johns, 2006), operate to influence the level of authenticity a leader achieves. In addition, they posited that a variety of discrete, contextual cues serve as display rules for emotional labor that may apply pressure to organizational members, including leaders, to compromise their authenticity.

Consistent with this argument, Diefendorff and Greguras (2009) demonstrated that organizational members, including those occupying leadership positions, respond to emotional display rules with an assortment of expressive management strategies. Moreover, Brotheridge and Lee (2002) found that when emotional labor involves surface acting (emotional displays that are intended to deceive others about what the actor is actually feeling), feelings of inauthenticity accrue. In contrast, when emotional displays involve deep acting (actor efforts to modify inner feelings to match emotional display rules and thereby deceive themselves; Brotheridge & Lee, 2002) and genuine emotions (Glomb & Tews, 2004), higher levels of felt authenticity are experienced. Additionally, ample research demonstrates that other persons are able to detect the differential levels of sincerity reflected by surface acting, deep acting, and genuine emotions (Grandey, 2000). Similarly, the literature on self-monitoring suggests that high versus low self-monitors are less likely to experience feelings of authenticity because they are more attuned to managing audience impressions, as opposed to their internal values and feelings (Gardner & Cogliser, 2008; Snyder, 1987). Finally, research indicates that when low as opposed to high self-monitors are forced by situational pressures to engage in impression management, audiences are more likely to judge their presentations as insincere (Bolino, Kacmar, Turnley, & Gilstrap, 2008). Based on this literature, we expect situational cues that encourage an internal (focus on personal values) as opposed to external (focus on managing audience impressions) orientation will elicit higher levels of self- and other-reported leader authenticity. Accordingly, we advance:

Hypothesis 3a: Situational cues emphasizing an internal focus on personal values will increase self-reported authentic leadership, whereas situational cues emphasizing an external focus on managing audience impressions will decrease self-reported authentic leadership.

Hypothesis 3b: Situational cues emphasizing an internal focus on personal values will increase other reported leader authenticity, whereas situational cues emphasizing an external focus on managing audience impressions will decrease other reported leader authenticity.

Method

Study Overview

To create a relatively homogeneous sample (see Mook, 1983), the participants were all undergraduate freshman students. Consistent with the conceptualization of indirect measures reviewed above and De Houwer and Moors’s (2010) recent analysis, we assessed implicit self-esteem using two previously established symbolic measures. First, at the beginning of the study, participants were asked to sign a form in order to measure signature size. Past research has shown that the larger one’s signature, relative to others’ signatures, the higher one’s implicit self-esteem (see Stapel & Blanton, 2004). Second, toward the end of the study, participants were instructed to evaluate the attractiveness of each letter of the alphabet. Past research has shown that people with higher levels of implicit self-esteem view the letters in their name and their initials as more attractive (see Dijksterhuis, 2004). The two methods were chosen because of their relative ease of administration and the prospects of achieving triangulation (Neuman, 2002). The process by which these two methods are thought to produce an outcome is through association-based implicit mental representations of self-associated objects (see Schnabel & Asendorpf, 2010). The implicitness of the self-esteem measure was assessed at the end of the study in the form of a funnel debriefing process whereby participants were asked about the true purposes of the study (see Procedure section below).

Participants were first instructed to imagine that they were the leader portrayed in an ethical dilemma vignette and then prepared a speech to describe how they were going to address the dilemma. Instead of using the other-report version of the ALQ, trained independent raters read and evaluated these speeches to assess the level of authenticity reflected in the narrative (see Materials and Measures section). To assess the potential influence of situational cues, we varied our instructions to respondents by providing them with cues to either focus their attention internally on personal values or externally on managing audience impressions when writing their speech. We also included a control condition that did not provide the respondents with any particular cues. After completion of the first task, the self-report version of the ALQ (Avolio, Gardner, & Walumbwa, 2007) was administered as well as a measure of explicit self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965).¹

Participants and Design

One-hundred and thirty-one undergraduate students (82 female, mean age = 18.91) enrolled in a general psychology course participated in the study in exchange for partial course credit. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three situational cue conditions (internal focus, external focus, control) in a one-way between-subjects design. Based on the results of the funnel debriefing procedure described below, no participants showed conscious awareness of the true purposes of the study.

Materials and Measures

Implicit self-esteem

Stapel and Blanton (2004) used what they called an Institute for Perception Studies (IPS) form to measure signature size (see also Zweigenhaft & Marlowe, 1973). They informed participants that the IPS cosponsored their research and they needed them to sign the form for the Institute’s records (see Appendix A). We adopted the same procedure. To obtain the outcome measure of implicit self-esteem based on signature size, each signature was assessed by drawing the smallest possible rectangle around the signature, measuring the area of that rectangle, and then dividing the area by the average for all signatures measured (see Stapel & Blanton, 2004).

Additionally, a measure of implicit self-esteem patterned after that used by Dijksterhuis (2004) was employed. For the implicit self-esteem measure, participants were instructed to evaluate the attractiveness of each letter of the alphabet on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all beautiful, 7 = extremely beautiful). The letters were presented individually and in random order on the computer screen (for a recent review of this measure, see Albers, Rotteveel, & Dijksterhuis, 2009). For the measure of implicit self-esteem based on letter preferences, a baseline for the evaluation of each letter that did not include the participant’s initials from his or her full name was initially computed. Next, a difference score between the baseline for each letter and each of the participant’s initials was calculated to obtain a relative attractiveness score (see Dijksterhuis, 2004).

Explicit self-esteem

Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale (1965) was administered to serve as our measure of explicit self-esteem. The explicit self-esteem score was computed by summing participant responses on each question from Rosenberg’s (1965) Self-Esteem Scale (α = .84). Sample items include, “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself” and “I wish I could have more respect for myself.”

Leader narrative

Participants were presented with a leader narrative that described an ethical dilemma (adapted from Treviño & Nelson, 2007; see Appendix B). Participants were asked to assume the role of the leader in the narrative and instructed to prepare a speech that they would deliver as the leader describing their response to the situation. Participants were also told that later in the experiment they would actually deliver that speech to other participants. In reality, they were never required to give the speech that they wrote, but were instructed this way to increase their motivation and hence the quality of their written responses (see Lerner &Tetlock, 1999).

Situational cues for internal versus external focus

Participants were randomly assigned to one of three sets of instructions included in the leader narrative reflecting differential situational cues (internal focus on personal values, external focus on persuasively managing audience impressions, control) regarding the speech that they were to write (see Appendix B). Specifically, participants in the internal focus condition received the following instruction: “In creating the speech it is important to hold strictly to your personal values.” Those in the external focus condition were instructed as follows: “In creating the speech it is important to be persuasive in order to get others to follow your course of action at all costs.” Finally, those in the control condition did not receive any instructions for focusing their attention in writing their speeches.

Perceived leader authenticity as reflected in leadership speeches

To obtain the other report measure of the perceived level of authenticity reflected in the leadership speeches, two trained independent raters who were blind to the condition assignments and the purpose of the experiment coded the authenticity of each speech on a 7-point semantic differential scale (see Gardner, 2003; Gilbert & Jones, 1986). Specifically, they rated the speeches using the following four 7-point continuums: straightforward to deceptive, authentic to phony, genuine to hypocritical, and sincere to insincere. To obtain the overall measure of authenticity in the leadership speeches, scores on the four 7-point scales where combined together. Coders’ percentage of agreement for the combined measure of authenticity in the leadership speeches was 98%. Disagreements in ratings were averaged together.

Self-reported authentic leadership

In developing the ALQ, Walumbwa et al. (2008) obtained support for a higher order, multidimensional model of the authentic leadership construct comprising leader self-awareness, relational transparency, internalized moral perspective, and balanced processing as subdimensions. Because our interest is in the relationship between implicit and explicit measures of self-esteem and the higher-order authentic leadership construct, rather than the subdimensions of authentic leadership, we followed Walumbwa et al.’s (2008) example and used summated scores for the overall self-report ALQ scale in our analysis. The ALQ was modified to reflect the context of the speech participants just wrote. Sample items include: “I said exactly what I meant in my speech,” “I made decisions in my speech based on my core values.” Despite the slight changes in wording we made, to be consistent with the context of the experiment (i.e., writing a leadership speech in response to an ethical dilemma), internal reliability was still high (α = .88).

Self-reported authenticity

Participant responses on Goldman and Kernis’s (2004) Authenticity Inventory were summed to obtain self-reported authenticity scores (α = .70). Because the positive relationship between individual authenticity and authentic leadership has been previously established (Leroy, Anseel, Gardner, & Sels, 2012), no formal hypotheses regarding this relationship were introduced in the present study. Instead, this measure was included for replication (Hunter, 2001) purposes only.

Self-monitoring and social desirability measures

Participants completed Gangestad and Snyder’s (2000) Self-Monitoring Scale (α = .72) and the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR; Paulhus, 2002; α = .76; for descriptives see Table 1). Scores on these measures were computed by following the instructions given by the authors of these instruments.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Between Additional Measures, Self-Esteem Measures, and Authentic Leadership Measures

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Authentic Inventory
2. BIDR (self-deception)	.48**
3. BIDR (impression mgt)	.25**	.35**
4. Self-monitoring	.14	−.06	.21*
5. Implicit Self-esteem (initials)	−.06	−.07	.01	.07
6. Implicit Self-esteem (signature)	−.07	−.01	.06	−.02	−.02
7. Explicit Self-esteem	.46**	.51**	.26**	.06	.05	.04
8. Authentic Leadership Questionnaire	.18*	.16	.09	−.18*	.16	.10	.10
9. Perceived Leader Authenticity	.02	−.01	−.06	.04	.08	−.10	.01	.36**
M	156.89	85.20	159.56	25.86	.96	−.23	20.11	4.12
SD	16.12	12.42	22.95	3.04	2.03	5.40	4.36	1.80

p < .05. **p < .01.

Procedure

At the outset of the study, participants were first asked to sign an IPS form. After turning in a signed form, participants completed the study in separate cubicles via a computer. The experimenter explained that the study instructions would be provided on the computer screen. The experimenter then started the computer program and left the room. Experimental administrators were blind to condition assignments. The computer program began by welcoming participants to the “Communication and Attitudes” experiment, after which participants were presented with the leader narrative along with one of three sets of instructions (internal focus, external focus, control) reflecting situational cues for the speech that they were to write.

After writing their speech, all participants completed a self-report version of the ALQ (Walumbwa et al., 2008), followed randomly by the attitude/personality measures (Authenticity Inventory: Goldman & Kernis, 2004; the 18-item Self-Monitoring Scale: Gangestad & Snyder, 2000; BIDR: Paulhus, 2002; Explicit Self-Esteem: Rosenberg, 1965; letter preference implicit self-esteem: Dijksterhuis, 2004). After the participants completed the attitude/personality measures, they were given the funnel debriefing and demographic questions and then fully debriefed about the general purpose of the study and use of deception.

Results

Although no specific hypotheses were made concerning the relationship between the self-esteem, authenticity, self-monitoring, and social desirability measures, as Table 1 shows, correlations were generally consistent with past research on self-esteem (Zeigler-Hill & Jordan, 2010), authenticity (Leroy, Anseel, et al., 2012), and authentic leadership (Tate, 2008). Moreover, the positive correlations between the Authenticity Inventory (Goldman & Kernis, 2004) and the BIDR, and Explicit Self-Esteem with both the BIDR and the Authentic Inventory, partially support our argument concerning potential problems with self-report measures. Although the correlations between the ALQ and the BIDR self-deception and impression management scales were not significant, both were positive, suggesting some potential influence of social desirability biases on this measure.²

Hypothesis 1 predicted that self-reported leadership authenticity would be positively related to other reported perceptions of leader authenticity. As Table 1 indicates, we found a significant positive correlation between ALQ scores and other reported perceptions of authenticity reflected in the leadership speeches. To further test this relationship, a one-step linear regression was conducted for the self-reported ALQ score. The predictor variable for the regression was perceived leader authenticity. The results were consistent with the correlations and the hypothesis. The other reported perceptions of leadership authenticity accounted for 13% of the variability in the ALQ score providing a significant model, F(1, 129) = 19.30, p < .001, with the perceived leader authenticity variable showing significance (B = 1.96, p < .001).

Hypothesis 2 addressed the interactive effects of implicit and explicit self-esteem with self-reported authentic leadership as measured by the ALQ and other reported perceptions of authenticity reflected in the leadership speeches. More specifically, Hypotheses 2a and 2b, respectively, predicted that scores on the authenticity measures would be highest for participants with optimal self-esteem (high explicit and high implicit self-esteem) and lowest for those with fragile self-esteem (low implicit and high explicit self-esteem). To test these hypotheses, hierarchical regression analyses were conducted for each leader authenticity measure. In the first step, the main effects of implicit and explicit self-esteem were included. In the second step, the two-way interactions between implicit and explicit self-esteem were included.

For Hypothesis 2a, the optimal linear combination of the centered implicit measures of self-esteem (letter preferences and signature size) and explicit measure of self-esteem accounted for 4.2% of the total variance in ALQ scores, F(3, 127) = 1.84, p = .14. Adding in the two-way interactions between the explicit self-esteem and implicit self-esteem measures created a significant improvement in the model, accounting for an additional 6.4% of the total variance in ALQ scores: R² = .106, F(5, 125) = 3.00, p = .014 (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Results of Hierarchical Regression Predicting Self-Reported Authentic Leadership (ALQ) and Perceived Leader Authenticity in Speeches as a Function of Implicit and Explicit Self-Esteem and the Interaction Between Implicit and Explicit Self-Esteem (Hypothesis 2)

		ALQ			Perceived Leader Authenticity
Model	Measure	R ²	F (df)	B	R ²	F (df)	B
Step 1		.042	1.84 (3,127)		.017	.723 (3,127)
	Implicit self-esteem (signature size)			.16			.035
	Implicit self-esteem (letter preferences)			.72			.069
	Explicit self-esteem			.21			.004
Step 2		.106	3.00 (5,125)**		.025	.642 (5,125)
	Implicit self-esteem (signature size) × Explicit self-esteem			.07*			.005
	Implicit self-esteem (letter preference) × Explicit self-esteem			.13			.015

p < .05. **p < .01.

The main effects at Step 1 for the two measures of implicit self-esteem (letter preferences and signature size) and the measure of explicit self-esteem failed to reach significance. However, at Step 2, as predicted, a significant two-way interaction between the signature size implicit self-esteem measure and the explicit self-esteem measure was found (B = .074, p = .02; see Table 2). Examination of simple slopes revealed that for people low in explicit self-esteem, signature size implicit self-esteem did not predict scores on the ALQ (B = −.21, p = .39); however, for those high in explicit self-esteem, signature size implicit self-esteem did predict scores on the ALQ (B = .75, p = .006). That is, participants who were low on explicit self-esteem scored similarly on the ALQ no matter if they were high or low in signature size implicit self-esteem. In contrast, those who were high in explicit self-esteem scored significantly higher on the ALQ when they scored high versus low on signature size implicit self-esteem (see Figure 1). Thus, as predicted by Hypothesis 2a, participants who reported the highest levels of authentic leadership possessed optimal self-esteem, whereas those who reported the lowest levels of authentic leadership exhibited fragile self-esteem. For the two-way interaction between the letter rating implicit self-esteem measure and explicit self-esteem, no significant effect was obtained (B = .13, p = .16).

Figure 1.

Self-report Authentic Leadership Questionnaire scores as a function of signature size implicit self-esteem and explicit self-esteem

For Hypothesis 2b, in which the other report perceptions of authenticity reflected in leadership speeches served as the focal authenticity measure (see Table 2), no effects reached significance (all p values >.23). Therefore, no support for Hypothesis 2b was obtained.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that the internal versus external focus instructions (situational manipulation) would produce higher levels of (a) self-reported authentic leadership and (b) other rated perceptions of leader authenticity. To test Hypothesis 3, two different one-way between-subjects analysis of variances (ANOVAs) were conducted using the three instruction conditions (internal focus, external focus, control) as the three levels of the independent variable. For the first ANOVA, the dependent variable was self-reported authentic leadership (ALQ scores). For the second ANOVA, the dependent variable was perceived leader authenticity as reflected in the leadership speeches. The results revealed a significant effect for the treatment on self-reported authentic leadership, F(2, 128) = 3.16, p < .05. Post hoc analyses using the least significant difference procedure revealed that the mean ALQ scores for the external focus (M = 47, SD = 8.95) and the internal focus (M = 48.69, SD = 7.80) instructions were significantly higher than the mean for the control condition (M = 43.82, SD = 10.74). No significant effects of the internal/external focus instructions were revealed for the measure of perceived leader authenticity (Table 3).

Table 3.

ANOVA Summary Table: Effects of Situational Cues on Self-Reported Authentic Leadership (ALQ) and Perceived Leader Authenticity in Speeches

Dependent Variable	Source	Sum of Squares	df	F
Self-reported authentic leadership (ALQ)	Internal focus cues	580.04	2	3.16*
	Error	11742.59	128
Perceived leader authenticity in speeches	External focus cues	11.35	2	1.78
	Error	408.19	128

Note. Post hoc least-significant difference analyses indicated that the M_{Low authenticity} = M_{High authenticity} > M_Control.

p < .05. **p < .01.

To summarize the findings relative to Hypothesis 3, contrary to expectations, no differences in the authenticity measures were obtained for the internal versus external focus instructions. The only significant differences that were observed emerged on the ALQ for the internal versus external focus instructions relative to the control group. Thus, cuing the participants with instructions to either be internally focused on personal values or externally focused on managing audience impressions through persuasion when writing their leadership speeches heightened their self-reported levels of authentic leadership, but had no impact on the perceived level of authenticity reflected in their speeches.³ We consider the implications of this finding as part of the discussion below.

Discussion

One purpose of the current study was to assess the utility of using indirect and direct measures of self-esteem to further validate the construct of authentic leadership and thereby address some of the operational problems encountered with current measures. More specifically, we assessed the efficacy of relating direct measures of authentic leadership with indirect and direct measures of self-esteem. The results indicated that self-reported authentic leadership related to the signature size implicit self-esteem measure and explicit self-esteem measure in the predicted direction. Specifically, those who scored high on the ALQ also scored high on the measures of implicit and explicit self-esteem, whereas those who scored low on the ALQ also scored low on the measure of implicit self-esteem but high on measure of explicit self-esteem. This is a noteworthy initial step, because this is the first study within the authentic leadership literature that triangulates direct (e.g., ALQ, explicit self-esteem) and indirect (implicit self-esteem) measures together. The convergence of these measures serves to further validate the construct of authentic leadership, as measured by the ALQ, while extending its nomological network (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955; Gardner et al., 2011).

Also noteworthy is the finding that scores on the ALQ were positively related to other rated perceptions of authenticity reflected in the leadership speeches. Indeed, this finding demonstrates that self-reported ratings of authentic leadership are related to behavioral indicators of leader authenticity, thereby providing further validation of the authentic leadership construct. Furthermore, these results support recent calls to include a wider range of methods within leadership research, including experimental designs and alternatives to survey-based measures (Gardner et al., 2010; Gardner et al., 2011). Nevertheless, a certain degree of caution is needed in interpreting the positive relationship between the two measures since the writing of the speeches was immediately followed by the ALQ. In particular, the positive relationship may simply reflect a desire for consistency between the two measures. However, given that the speech was written first and the authenticity of the speech was assessed by independent raters rather than participants, concerns about the susceptibility of participants to consistency biases are reduced.

Despite the intriguing implications of the current findings, there are still questions that need to be answered. First, it is not clear why only one of the measures of implicit self-esteem yielded support for Hypothesis 2. One potential explanation is that problems with the conceptualization and operationalization of implicit self-esteem discussed above obscured the posited relationships. Part of the confusion about what implicit self-esteem involves stems from the diverse methods used to measure it, as well as the situational and personal factors salient at the time of measurement (see Fazio & Olson, 2003). For example, Bosson et al. (2000) found that among seven commonly used implicit self-esteem measures (one of which was the letter-preference test), none correlated with each other. This was true in the current study as well. As Table 1 indicates, the two measures of implicit self-esteem were not significantly correlated, raising concerns that they may be measuring different constructs. However, just as the current results indicate that the utility of direct measures should not be ignored, despite some limitations, they suggest that the efficacy of indirect measures should not be discounted because of current limitations. To the contrary, our findings suggest that such measures have great potential for providing a more complete understanding of how people see themselves (Zeigler-Hill & Jordan, 2010), as demonstrated by the significant interaction revealed between the self-report ALQ scores and the measures of implicit and explicit self-esteem (see Figure 1).

Second, it is not clear why only the self-report ALQ showed the predicted interaction between implicit and explicit self-esteem. Despite the significant correlation between the ALQ and other rated assessments of authenticity reflected in the leadership speech, each measure may be tapping into different components of leader authenticity since the construct is assessed in very different ways in each measure. Indeed, while the ALQ focused on operationalizing the four-component conception of authentic leadership advanced by Avolio, Gardner and colleagues (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner, Avolio, & Walumbwa, 2005; Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, et al., 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008), the measure of perceived leader authenticity as reflected in leadership speeches seeks to operationalize the extent to which others judge the leader to be authentic overall in conveying a recommended response to an ethical dilemma. In a similar vein, since one measure of leadership authenticity was a self-report measure, whereas the second was an other (rater)-report measure, the fact that variability was much lower for the other-report measure could possibly account for the differential relationships observed. Such reasoning may be further substantiated by the finding that the other reported measure of perceived leader authenticity accounted for only 13% of the variability in the ALQ score.

Third, we also attempted to ascertain the extent to which authenticity is influenced by situational cues. As discussed in the rationale for Hypothesis 3, Erickson (1995a, 1995b) posited that rather than existing as an either or condition, the level of authenticity that individuals experience varies along a continuum from relatively low to relatively high levels, depending on situational forces. Moreover, building on the work of Johns (2006), Gardner et al. (2009) theorize that certain elements of the omnibus (e.g., national and organizational culture, industry and occupation, organizational structure, and time) and discrete (i.e., situational) context can influence a leader’s level of authenticity. Accordingly, we predicted that cues for an internal focus on personal values versus an external focus on persuasive impression management included in the participant instructions for writing the leadership speeches would differentially influence leadership authenticity.

Contrary to our expectations, the internal versus external focus instructions did not have a differential impact on the level of authenticity displayed by participants as reflected in their leadership speeches and the self-report measure of leadership authenticity. However, both sets of instructions did produce elevated levels of self-reported authentic leadership relative to the control group, which received no instructions regarding an internal versus external focus. Thus, instructions to either be internally focused on personal values or externally focused on impression management in the leadership speeches both appeared to prime the respondents regarding authenticity concerns, which in turn affected self-reported authentic leadership, but not the level of perceived behavioral authenticity reflected in the speeches. Hence, some support for our argument that situational cues can affect authenticity was obtained, even though the effects for the instructions were not in the direction predicted.

These findings highlight the importance of accounting for situational cues when using survey measures of authentic leadership, and self-reports in particular. Moreover, they suggest that more behavioral measures of authentic leadership, such as those obtained from the coding of the level of authenticity reflected in the leadership speeches, may provide useful alternatives to survey measures. In addition, they suggest that despite the evidence for the construct validation of authentic leadership as measured by the ALQ noted above, it may still be more susceptible to demand characteristics than behavioral measures. Accordingly, future research should consider the utility of employing both survey, behavioral, and implicit measures of authenticity in pursuit of triangulation of measures and results (Neuman, 2002).

Despite the apparent effects of the internal versus external focus instructions relative to the control group, we were surprised that the means for these two conditions were not significantly different. Indeed, we thought that the instructions to “be persuasive” would be interpreted by respondents as a cue to shape their presentation to make it appeal to the audience, even if doing so resulted in some distortion of their true opinions. In hindsight, perhaps it is not so surprising that no differences between conditions were obtained, since actors may have viewed an authentic presentation that involves focusing on personal values as their most persuasive option. Furthermore, the instruction to “be true to their values” does not clearly align with all four components found in current theorizing on authentic leadership as discussed in the introduction. Thus, future research using stronger cues that are more consistent with current theorizing in authentic leadership may be necessary to better assess the potential effects of situational influences on actor displays of leadership authenticity.

Overall, given the connections between self-report ALQ scores, other-ratings of perceived leader authenticity, the signature size measure of implicit self-esteem, and explicit self-esteem, our use of alternative measures of leader authenticity and implicit measures of self-esteem served to further validate and extend the nomological network (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955) of self-reported leader authenticity. Moreover, the possibility of using indirect measures for people occupying leadership roles opens up an array of possibilities for conducting research in this area. For example, it may be possible to measure leaders’ implicit and explicit self-esteem to gain insight into the interrelationships between optimal self-esteem, leader authenticity, leadership effectiveness, as well as follower performance, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors (e.g., Walumbwa et al., 2008).

Beyond authentic leadership research, the current results show promise for using indirect social cognition measures in other leadership areas. For example, indirect measures for McClelland’s achievement and power motivations (e.g., the Thematic Apperception Test or TAT) could be employed to experimentally test predicted relationships between these motivations and leadership effectiveness (e.g., Gardner & Avolio, 1998; House, 1977; House & Howell, 1992; House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1991; van Emmerik, Gardner, Wendt, & Fischer, 2010); nonconscious components of implicit leadership theories could be better understood through development of alternative indirect measures (e.g., Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; House & Aditya, 1997); follower’s deep-level diversity in organizations could be examined through indirect measures of stereotypes (e.g., Ragins & Gonzalez, 2003); and indirect measures of goals could be developed to more clearly understand followers’ current work motivations (e.g., Latham, Stajkovic, & Latham, 2010; Locke & Latham, 2004).

Since authentic leadership has been shown to be an effective leadership style for managers in particular (Gardner et al., 2011), the current results have practical implications. From a manager’s perspective, they support the assertion that developing optimal self-esteem is an important antecedent of becoming an authentic leader. Therefore, leadership development programs that are designed to heighten leader self-awareness and foster optimal self-esteem may be particularly beneficial.

Conclusion

As interest in authentic leadership grows, further validation of the construct is needed. Results of such validation efforts, including those of the current study, may provide unique insights into actor authenticity while simultaneously triangulating results (Neuman, 2002) obtained from reliable and valid survey measures of leader authenticity. As evidence accumulates in support of the validity of the ALQ, as in the current study, researchers can use this instrument with greater confidence. At the same time, it must be recognized that situational influences can also play a role in determining one’s current level of leader authenticity as measured by the ALQ. Beyond providing insight into the validity of the ALQ, indirect measures, to the extent that they provide deeper insights into personal authenticity, may help scholars to unlock the nonconscious processes whereby authenticity becomes manifest. Given that indirect measures such as signature size are relatively nontransparent, they provide creative researchers with new and novel tools for probing leader and follower authenticity and assessing their effects on ethical conduct and organizational outcomes.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Bios

Brandon Randolph-Seng is an assistant professor of management in the College of Business and Entrepreneurship at Texas A&M University-Commerce. His research interests include the social and cognitive factors involved in leadership, groups and entrepreneurship.

William L. Gardner is the Jerry S. Rawls Chair in Leadership at Texas Tech University. He is also the Director of the Institute for Leadership Research and the Area Coordinator for the Area of Management. His research focuses on leadership, business ethics and social influence processes within organizations.

References

Andersen

S. A.

Moskowitz

G. B.

Blair

I. V.

Nosek

B. A.

(2007). Automatic thought. In Higgins

E. T.

Kruglanski

(Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 138-175). New York, NY: Guilford.

Aidman

E. V.

Carroll

S. M.

(2003). Implicit individual differences: Relationships between implicit self-esteem, gender identity, and gender attitudes. European Journal of Personality, 17, 19-37.

Ajzen

Fishbein

(2000). Attitudes and the attitude-behavior relation: Reasoned and automatic processes. In Stroebe

Hewstone

(Eds.), European review of social psychology (pp. 1-33). New York, NY: Wiley.

Albers

Rotteveel

Dijksterhuis

(2009). Towards optimizing the name letter test as a measure of implicit self-esteem. Self and Identity, 8, 63-77.

Antonakis

Cianciolo

A. T.

Sternberg

R. J.

(Eds.). (2004). The nature of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Atwater

L. E.

Ostroff

Yammarino

F. J.

Fleenor

J. W.

(1998). Self-other agreement: Does it really matter? Personnel Psychology, 51, 577-598.

Atwater

L. E.

Yammarino

F. J.

(1997). Self-other rating agreement: A review and model. In Ferris

(Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 15, pp. 121-174). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Awamleh

Gardner

W. L.

(1999). Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: The effects of vision content, delivery, and organizational performance. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 345-374.

Avolio

B. J.

Gardner

W. L.

(2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315-338.

10.

Avolio

B. J.

Gardner

W. L.

Walumbwa

F. O.

(2007). Authentic Leadership Questionnaire. Retrieved from http://www.mindgarden.com/products/alq.htm

11.

Avolio

B. J.

Gardner

W. L.

Walumbwa

F. O.

Luthans

May

D. R.

(2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801-823.

12.

Banaji

M. R.

Prentice

D. A.

(1994). The self in social contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 297-332.

13.

Bargh

J. A.

Chartrand

T. L.

(2000). The mind in the middle: A practical guild to priming and automaticity research. In Reis

H. T.

Judd

C. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 253-285). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

14.

Bass

B. M.

(2008). The Bass handbook of leadership. New York, NY: Free Press.

15.

Becker

Cropanzano

Sanfey

(2011). Organizational neuroscience: Taking organizational theory inside the neural black box. Journal of Management, 37, 933-961.

16.

Beggan

J. K.

(1992). On the social nature of nonsocial perception: The mere ownership effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 229-237.

17.

Bolino

M. C.

Kacmar

K. M.

Turnley

W. H.

Gilstrap

J. B.

(2008). A multi-level review of impression management motives and behaviors. Journal of Management, 34, 1080-1109.

18.

Bosson

J. K.

Brown

R. P.

Zeigler-Hill

Swann

W. B.

(2003). Self-enhancement tendencies among people with high explicit self-esteem: The moderating role of implicit self-esteem. Self and Identity, 2, 169-187.

19.

Bosson

J. K.

Swann

W. B.

Pennebaker

J. W.

(2000). Stalking the perfect measure of implicit self-esteem: The blind men and the elephant revisited? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 631-643.

20.

Brotheridge

C. M.

Lee

R. T.

(2002). ‘Testing a conservation of resources model of the dynamics of emotional labor’. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 57-67.

21.

Carlston

(2010). Models of implicit and explicit mental representations. In Gawronski

Payne

B. K.

(Eds.), Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications (pp. 38-61). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

22.

Cronbach

L. J.

Meehl

(1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.

23.

De Houwer

, (2006). What are implicit measures and why are we using them? In Wiers

R. W.

Stacy

A. W.

(Eds.), Handbook of implicit cognition and addiction (pp. 11-27). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

24.

De Houwer

Moors

(2007). How to define and examine the implicitness of implicit measures. In Wittenbrink

Schwarz

(Eds.), Implicit measures of attitudes (pp. 179-194). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

25.

De Houwer

Moors

(2010). Implicit measures: Similarities and differences. In Gawronski

Payne

B. K.

(Eds.), Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications (pp. 176-193). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

26.

De Houwer

Teige-Mocigemba

Spruyt

Moors

(2009). Implicit measures: A normative analysis and review. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 347-368.

27.

Diefendorff

J. M.

Greguras

G. J.

(2009). Contextualizing emotional display rules: Examining the roles of targets and discrete emotions in shaping display rule perceptions. Journal of Management, 35, 880-898.

28.

Dijksterhuis

(2004). I like myself but I don’t know why: Enhancing implicit self-esteem by subliminal evaluative conditioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 345-355.

29.

Dunning

Cohen

G. L.

(1992). Egocentric definitions of traits and abilities in social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 341-355.

30.

Eaton

Struthers

C. W.

Shomrony

Santelli

A. G.

(2007). When apologies fail: The moderating role of implicit and explicit self-esteem on apology and forgiveness. Self and Identity, 6, 209-222.

31.

Erickson

R. J.

(1995a). Our society, our selves: Becoming authentic in an inauthentic world. Advanced Development, 6, 27-39.

32.

Erickson

R. J.

(1995b). The importance of authenticity for self and society. Symbolic Interaction, 18, 121-144.

33.

Endrissat

Muller

W. R.

Kaudela-Baum

(2007). En route to an empirically-based understanding of authentic leadership. European Management Journal, 25, 207-220.

34.

Fazio

R. H.

Olson

M. A.

(2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 297-327.

35.

Ferguson

M. J.

Bargh

J. A.

(2003). The constructive nature of automatic evaluation. In Musch

Klauer

K. C.

(Eds.), The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion (pp. 169-188). Hilladale, NJ: Erlbaum.

36.

Ferguson

M. J.

Bargh

J. A.

(2007). Beyond the attitude object: Implicit attitudes spring from object-centered contexts. In Wittenbrink

Schwarz

(Eds.), Implicit measures of attitudes (pp. 216-246). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

37.

Gangestad

S. W.

Snyder

(2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 530-555.

38.

Gardner

W. L.

(2003). Perceptions of leader charisma, effectiveness and integrity: Effects of exemplification, delivery and ethical reputation. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 502-527.

39.

Gardner

W. L.

Avolio

B. J.

(1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23, 32-58.

40.

Gardner

W. L.

Avolio

B. J.

Luthans

May

D. R.

Walumbwa

(2005a). “Can you see the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343-372.

41.

Gardner

W. L.

Avolio

B. J.

Walumbwa

F. O.

(2005b). Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects, and development. Oxford, England: Elsevier.

42.

Gardner

W. L.

Cogliser

C. C.

(2008). Can a leader be “true to the self” and socially skilled? The paradox of leader authenticity and behavioral flexibility. In Barry

Hansen

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of new approaches in management and organization (pp. 93-94). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

43.

Gardner

W. L.

Cogliser

C. C.

Davis

K. M.

Dickens

M. P.

(2011). Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1120-1145.

44.

Gardner

W. L.

Fischer

Hunt

J. G.

(2009). Emotional labor and leadership: A threat to authenticity? Leadership Quarterly, 20, 466-482.

45.

Gardner

W. L.

Lowe

K. B.

Moss

T. W.

Mahoney

K. T.

Cogliser

C. C.

(2010). Scholarly leadership of the study of leadership: A review of The Leadership Quarterly’s second decade 2000-2009. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 922-958.

46.

Gawronski

Bodenhausen

G. V.

(2005). Accessibility effects on implicit cognition: The role of knowledge activation and retrieval experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 672-685.

47.

Gawronski

LeBel

E. P.

(2008). Understanding patterns of attitude change: When implicit measures show change, but explicit measures do not. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1355-1361.

48.

Gilbert

D. T.

Jones

E. E.

(1986). Perceiver-induced constraint: Interpretations of self- generated reality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 269-280.

49.

Glomb

T. M.

Tews

M. J.

(2004). Emotional labor: A conceptualization and scale development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 1-23.

50.

Goldman

B. M.

Kernis

M. H.

(2004). The development of the Authenticity Inventory (Version 3, Working Paper). Athens: University of Georgia.

51.

Grandey

A. A.

(2000). Emotional regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 95-110.

52.

Greenwald

A. G.

Banaji

M. R.

(1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4-27.

53.

Greenwald

A. G.

Farnham

(2000). Using the Implicit Association Test to measure self-esteem and self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 1022-1038.

54.

Harter

(2002). Authenticity. In Snyder

C. R.

Lopez

S. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 382-394). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

55.

House

R. J.

(1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In Hunt

J. G.

Larson

L. L.

(Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

56.

House

R. J.

Aditya

(1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23, 409-474.

57.

House

R. J.

Howell

J. M.

(1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 3, 81-108.

58.

House

R. J.

Spangler

W. D.

Woycke

(1991). Personality and charisma in the U.S. presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 364-396.

59.

Hunter

J. E.

(2001). The desperate need for replications. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 149-158.

60.

Hoyle

R. H.

Kernis

M. H.

Leary

M. R.

Baldwin

M. W.

(1999). Selfhood: Identity, esteem, regulation. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

61.

Ilies

Morgeson

F. P.

Nahrgang

J. D.

(2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader-follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 373-394.

62.

Johns

(2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386-408.

63.

Jones

J. T.

Pelham

B. W.

Carvallo

Mirenberg

M. C.

(2004). How do I love thee? Let me count the Js: Implicit egotism and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 665-683.

64.

Johnson

Saboe

(2011). Measuring implicit traits in organizational research: Development of an indirect measure of employee implicit self-concept. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 530-547.

65.

Jordan

C. H.

Spencer

S. J.

Zanna

M. P.

Hoshino-Browne

Correll

(2003). Secure and defensive high self-esteem. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 85, 969-978.

66.

Kernis

M. H.

(2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 1-26.

67.

Kernis

M. H.

Goldman

B. M.

(2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: Theory and research. In Zanna

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 283-357). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

68.

Kernis

M. H.

Lakey

C. E.

Heppner

W. L.

(2008). Secure versus fragile high self-esteem as a predictor of verbal defensiveness: Converging findings across three different markers. Journal of Personality, 73, 477-512.

69.

Kitayama

Karasawa

(1997). Implicit self-esteem in Japan: Name letters and birthday numbers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 736-742.

70.

Koole

S. L.

Dijksterhuis

van Knippenberg

(2001). What’s in a name: Implicit self-esteem and the automatic self. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 80, 669-685.

71.

Latham

G. P.

Stajkovic

A. D.

Latham

E. A.

(2010). The relevance and viability of subconscious goals in the workplace. Journal of Management, 36, 234-255.

72.

Lerner

Tetlock

P. E.

(1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 255-275.

73.

Leroy

Anseel

Gardner

W. L.

Sels

(2012). Authentic leadership, authentic followership, basic need satisfaction, and work role performance: A cross-level study. Journal of Management. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0149206312457822

74.

Leroy

Palanski

Simons

(2012). Authentic leadership and behavioral integrity as drivers of follower commitment and performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 255-364.

75.

Locke

E. A.

Latham

G. P.

(2004). What should we do about motivation theory? Six recommendations for the twenty-first century. Academy of Management Review, 29, 379-387.

76.

McGregor

Jordan

C. H.

(2007). The mask of zeal: Low implicit self-esteem, and defensive extremism after self-threat. Self and Identity, 6, 223-237.

77.

Mook

(1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychology, 38, 379-387.

78.

Neider

L. L.

Schriesheim

C. A.

(2011). The Authentic Leadership Inventory (ALI): Development and empirical tests. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1146-1164.

79.

Neuman

W. L.

(2002). Social science research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.

80.

Nosek

B. A.

(2007). Implicit-explicit relations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 65-69.

81.

Olson

M. A.

Fazio

R. H.

Hermann

A. D.

(2007). Reporting tendencies underlie discrepancies between implicit and explicit measures of self-esteem. Psychological Science, 18, 287-291.

82.

Paulhus

D. L.

(1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598-609.

83.

Paulhus

D. L.

(2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In Braun

Jackson

D. N.

Wiley

D. E.

(Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 67-88). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

84.

Payne

B. K.

Gawronski

(2010). A history of implicit social cognition. In Gawronski

Payne

B. K.

(Eds.), Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications (pp. 1-15). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

85.

Pittinsky

Tyson

C. J.

(2005). Leader authenticity markers: Findings from a study of perceptions of African American political leaders. In Gardner

W. L.

Avolio

B. J.

Walumbwa

F. O.

(Eds.), Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects and development (pp. 253-280). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.

86.

Ragins

B. R.

Gonzalez

J. A.

(2003). Understanding diversity in organizations: Getting a grip on a slippery construct. In Greenberg

(Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (2nd ed., pp. 125-163). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

87.

Ranganath

K. A.

Smith

C. T.

Nosek

B. A.

(2008). Distinguishing automatic and controlled components of attitudes from direct and indirect measurement methods. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 386-396.

88.

Rosenberg

(1965). Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES). Princeton, NJ: Florence Slade, Princeton University Press.

89.

Rosenberg

(1979). Conceiving the self. New York, NY: Basic Books.

90.

Rydell

R. J.

McConnell

A. R.

(2010). Consistency and inconsistency in implicit social cognition. In Gawronski

Payne

B. K.

(Eds.), Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications (pp. 295-310). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

91.

Schnabel

Asendorpf

J. B.

(2010). The self-concept: New insights from implicit measurement procedures. In Gawronski

Payne

B. K.

(Eds.), Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications (pp. 408-425). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

92.

Shamir

Eilam

(2005). “What’s your story?” A life- stories approach to authentic leadership development. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 395-417.

93.

Shondrick

S. J.

Dinh

J. E.

Lord

R. G.

(2010). Developments in implicit leadership theory and cognitive science: Applications to improving measurement and understanding alternatives to hierarchical leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 959-978.

94.

Simons

(2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13, 18-35.

95.

Simons

(2008). The integrity dividend: Leading by the power of your word. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

96.

Simons

Friedman

Liu

L. A.

McLean Parks

(2007). Racial differences in sensitivity to behavioral integrity: Attitudinal consequences, in-group effects, and “trickle down” among Black and non-Black employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 650-665.

97.

Smith

E. R.

(1996). What do connectionism and social psychology offer each other? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 893-912.

98.

Snyder

(1987). Private appearances/public realities: The psychology of self-monitoring. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.

99.

Spalding

L. R.

Hardin

C. D.

(1999). Unconscious unease and self-handicapping: Behavioral consequences of individual differences in implicit and explicit self-esteem. Psychological Science, 10, 535-539.

100.

Sparrowe

R. T.

(2005). Authentic leadership and the narrative self. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 419-439.

101.

Stapel

D. A.

Blanton

(2004). From seeing to being: Subliminal social comparisons affect implicit and explicit self-evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 468-481.

102.

Steinberg

J. A.

Karpinski

Alloy

L. B.

(2007). The exploration of implicit aspects of self-esteem in vulnerability-stress models of depression. Self and Identity, 6, 101-117.

103.

Tate

(2008). A longitudinal study of the relationships among self-monitoring, authentic leadership, and perceptions of leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15, 16-29.

104.

Taylor

S. E.

Brown

J. D.

(1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.

105.

Treviño

Nelson

(2007). Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right (4th ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.

106.

van Emmerik

Gardner

W. L.

Wendt

Fischer

(2010). Associations of culture and personality with McClelland’s motives: A cross-cultural study of managers in 24 countries. Group and Organization Management, 35, 329-367.

107.

Vargas

P. T.

Sekaquaptewa

von Hippel

(2007). Armed only with paper and pencil: “Low-tech” measures of implicit attitudes. In Wittenbrink

Schwarz

(Eds.), Implicit measures of attitudes (pp. 103-124). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

108.

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.

109.

Wegner

D. M.

Bargh

J. A.

(1998). Control and automaticity in social life. In Gilbert

D. T.

Fiske

S. T.

Lindzey

(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 446-496). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

110.

Yukl

(2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle Creek, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

111.

Zerbe

W. J.

Paulhus

D. L.

(1987). Socially desirable responding in organizational behavior: A reconception. Academy of Management Review, 12, 250-264.

112.

Zeigler-Hill

Jordan

C. H.

(2010). Two faces of self-esteem. In Gawronski

Payne

B. K.

(Eds.), Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications (pp. 392-407). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

113.

Zeigler-Hill

Terry

(2007). Perfectionism and explicit self-esteem: The moderating role of implicit self-esteem. Self and Identity, 6, 137-153.

114.

Zweigenhaft

R. L.

Marlowe

(1973). Signature size: Studies in expressive movement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40, 469-473.