Abstract
Based on semistructured interviews with 24 mid-level managers, this study examines the process of developing authentic leadership in a training context. The results revealed a process beginning with an exploration phase, in which participants increased their self-awareness and identified their leadership issues, identified new behaviors likely to address those issues, and tested those behaviors to confirm their effect. This was followed by an integration phase in which the participants reflected on the beneficial effects of those new behaviors and were able to adopt them in their organizational setting. The results also indicate that three phenomena activated by the training practices enable the participants to develop their authentic leadership, namely, a clamp effect, a safety-net effect, and an organizational simulation effect.
During periods of dramatic change in the business environment, when operating rules need to be reviewed, organizations and the people who run them face ever greater ambiguity and complexity (Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009). Indeed, never before have organizations faced so much turmoil. The recent economic crisis has increased the fragility of organizations that were already confronted with an accelerating pace of change, strong competition from emerging economies, and an ongoing accumulation of financial scandals. It is in these challenging moments of instability that the need for leadership is most acutely felt, especially positive forms of leadership that help restore the confidence of stakeholders—investors, employees, and customers—who have become increasingly intolerant of inconsistencies between the principles espoused by leaders and their actual conduct (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008). As suggested by Avolio and Gardner (2005), the unique stressors facing organizations throughout the world today call for a renewed focus on what constitutes genuine leadership [and] on restoring confidence, hope and optimism; being able to rapidly bounce back from catastrophic events and display resiliency; helping people in their search for meaning and connection by fostering a new self-awareness; and genuinely relating to all stakeholders. (p. 316)
For these authors, the adoption of an authentic leadership (AL) style is needed to achieve sustainable business performance.
Since the very nature of such leadership calls for internalization of attitudes and behaviors that—to be considered authentic—cannot simply be imitated or reproduced, there is considerable debate in the literature surrounding the development of AL. Although studies have shown that certain personal traits promote development in this regard, many researchers agree that the majority of individuals have the potential to become authentic leaders, provided that the skills identified for development and the techniques chosen to develop them are appropriate (Cooper, Scandura, & Schriesheim, 2005; May, Chan, Hodges, & Avolio, 2003).
To our knowledge, only one study indicates that AL can be developed through participation in a leadership development program (Baron, 2012). Moreover, no study has yet explored the “black box” of AL development—the process individuals go through during their development and the elements of training programs that foster that development. As mentioned by Gioia, Corley, and Hamilton (2012), since “much of the world with which we deal is essentially socially constructed,” studying this process “implies that we focus more on the means by which organization members go about constructing and understanding their experience and less on the number or frequency of measureable occurrences” (p. 16). Our study is thus a qualitative investigation that aims to fill a gap in the literature by deepening our understanding of AL development within a training context.
Theoretical Framework
Conceptions of Authenticity
Historically, authenticity has been conceptualized from both philosophical and psychological perspectives (Grégoire, Baron, Ménard, & Lachance, 2013; Novicevic, Harvey, Buckley, Brown, & Evans, 2006). In the philosophical perspective, authenticity is defined through individual virtues and ethical choices. Being authentic means taking responsibility for one’s decisions and respecting social norms and other individuals. According to this perspective, someone who is authentic is ethical and exhibits integrity. This normative perspective involves judgments made by other people to determine to what extent the individual is authentic. Existentialist philosophers, such as Heidegger (1962) and Sartre (1948), wrote extensively on authenticity, linking the concept to the human need to maintain a personal balance between individual will or responsibility and collective expectations. Kierkegaard (1987) argued that individuals who undertake authentic action to the extent that their emotional perceptions of situations are consistent and uncontaminated by social considerations that push aside authentic emotions.
The psychological view of authenticity was inspired largely by Kierkegaard’s vision (DeCarvalho, 1989). Indeed, the self is seen as a psychological entity, distinct from the concept of mind and soul. In this descriptive perspective, being authentic is being one’s true or real self and acting in congruence with one’s values and does not imply any moral judgment (Erikson, 1959; Maslow, 1976). According to the humanistic view, congruence between subjective experience and behavior was seen as both a bulwark against psychopathology and a means for attaining well-being and freedom (May, 1981; Yalom, 1980). Rogers (1961) highlighted the importance of being one’s true self and stated that authenticity comes from the concordance between one’s self and immediate experience. More recently, the positive psychology movement, with its empirical examination of humanistic assumptions, has revived interest in the notion of authenticity and contributed to the emergence of the concept of authentic leadership.
Authentic Leadership
The concept of AL appeared in the academic literature only in the 2000s, with the birth of the positive psychology movement (Luthans & Avolio, 2003), though it may find some historical roots in conceptualization of responsibilities of Chester I. Barnard (1938, as cited in Novicevic, David, Dorn, Buckley, & Brown, 2005). Authentic leadership is increasingly emerging as an integrative concept in the literature on positive organizational behavior (Luthans, 2002), ethical leadership (Brown & Treviño, 2006), and transformational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Articles from both the popular press (George, 2003; Goffee & Jones, 2005) and from academic journals (Endrissat, Müller, & Kaudela-Baum, 2007; Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005; Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005) have contributed to a progressive clarification of what it means to be “an authentic leader.” Initially, AL was defined as a multidimensional and multilevel construct. Indeed, Luthans and Avolio (2003) define AL as “a process that draws from both positive psychological capacities and a highly developed organizational context, which results in both greater self-awareness and self-regulated positive behaviors on the part of leaders and associates, fostering positive self-development” (p. 243).
In the context of this study, in which we investigate the development of leaders, we chose to rely on the perspective put forward by Avolio, Gardner, and their colleagues (e.g., Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner et al., 2005) and also by Ilies et al. (2005), as it integrates views derived from multiple theorists, primarily from social psychology (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Kernis, 2003). While we acknowledge the philosophical roots of authenticity, this perspective “focuses explicitly on the development of authentic leaders and authentic followers, which make it state-like and ultimately something one can develop in leaders” (Walumbwa et al., 2008, p. 93). Drawing on Kernis’s (2003) conception of authenticity, the self-based model of AL developed by Gardner et al. (2005), which includes propositions from Ilies et al. (2005), identified several distinguishing features associated with authentic self-regulation processes, including the following: (a) self-awareness, that is, knowledge of one’s strengths, weaknesses, values, beliefs, and emotions, as well as their impact on others; (b) relational transparency, that is, revealing information, thoughts, and sincere emotions to others; (c) balanced treatment of information, that is, unbiased openness to differing perspectives on oneself and questioning of one’s positions; and (d) authentic behavior, that is, a process of self-regulation guided by personal values and standards forming the basis for decision making and undertaking action. This last dimension was renamed Internalized moral perspective by Walumbwa et al. (2008) in their study on the development of a theory-based measure of AL. As they summarized in their validation study of the four-factor conceptualization, Kernis (2003) advanced a developmental model that posits attainment of authenticity produces ‘optimal’ levels of self-esteem. That is, when individuals come to know and accept themselves, including their strengths and weaknesses, they display high levels of stable, as opposed to fragile, self-esteem. Such individuals are also relatively free of the defensive biases displayed by less mature persons and consequently more comfortable forming transparent, open, and close relationships with others. Furthermore, they display authentic behavior that reflects consistency between their values, beliefs, and actions. Similarly, Ryan and Deci (2003) asserted that authenticity is achieved when individuals enact internalized self-regulation processes—that is, their conduct is guided by internal values as opposed to external threats, inducements, or social expectations and rewards. (p. 93)
We consider the features of this model to be crucial requirements for a theory of AL and its development and thus especially relevant in the context of this study.
Leadership Development Programs
Kets de Vries and Korotov (2007) argue that leadership development training programs should foster changes at the cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioral levels in the participants and be designed as a place of experimentation where participants can test their new knowledge, emotions, and behaviors before transferring them to their real lives. Some studies point to the effectiveness of training programs that help create an environment conducive to experimentation, where exploration is permitted and encouraged. When this laboratory context fosters a culture that is both challenging and supportive, it helps develop the participants’ courage to explore less-frequented areas of behavior and attitudes, through practicing new ways of being in a safe and supportive environment (Eich, 2008). This type of environment also promotes the development of confidence in oneself and trust in others.
Also, Kets de Vries and Korotov (2007) suggest that several techniques can be used for this purpose, such as positive reframing (i.e., enabling the person to perceive a situation differently), encouragement, anticipation, and repeated application of ways of acting that the person does not yet master well. Discussions with other participants, and the process of confronting and clarifying ideas that such discussions promote, can also contribute to finding deeper solutions to organizational and personal problems, refining ideas and action plans, increasing self-awareness and awareness of one’s reactions to others, and reducing the ambiguity regarding what the participant really wants to accomplish. Thus, the empathy, support, and encouragement of others all play key roles in the participants’ enjoyment of experimentation and their eventual integration of new behaviors; such support can be enhanced by small-group activities fostering the development of relationships, by peer coaching, and by other forms of peer support (Eich, 2008; Kets de Vries & Korotov, 2007).
Some authors suggest that a proactive training strategy can be adopted by planning trigger events geared toward developing authentic leadership abilities (Cooper et al., 2005; Thomas, 2008), as well as using events that arise spontaneously in the workplace to reflect on “what is happening” and on how to use these events to foster authentic leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Luthans & Avolio, 2003). Trigger events are defined as major (although sometimes subtle) changes in the individual’s situation that facilitate personal growth and development (Gardner et al., 2005). In organizational settings, trigger events can occur in situations that challenge the leader’s skills and require unconventional solutions. As DeRue and Wellman (2009) mention, experiences that present developmental challenges provide a platform on which individuals can try out new behaviors and reframe their old ways of thinking and acting. That said, trigger events can presumably be initiated by a leadership development program, either through experiments conducted during the seminar or through putting learning and experimentation objectives into practice in the context of work (Cooper et al., 2005; Luthans & Avolio 2003; Roche 2010).
Cooper et al. (2005) found that one of the major issues involved in designing authentic leadership development programs is determining how best to create conditions that are conducive to the occurrence of trigger events within the controlled setting of the training program. To date, few studies have identified specific examples of planned trigger events that have significantly promoted the development of authentic leadership. Action research conducted with 22 managers by Puente, Crous, and Venter (2007) showed that a process of appreciative inquiry can serve as a positive trigger event to promote better self-awareness and discovery of one’s own authenticity. That study was based on an authentic leadership training program that lasted only one day, which appears contrary to the notion of internalizing leadership. In addition, Cooper et al. (2005) argue that the accumulation of small planned trigger events—as opposed to significant unplanned events—is an important avenue of authentic leadership research that should be pursued, as such research could lead to changes in how training interventions are designed. It is also important to consider that the trigger events—regardless of their frequency or intensity—will not necessarily produce genuine leaders; rather, it is how the individual gives meaning to the event that could affect how he or she acts as an authentic leader. While some authors have suggested methods to better identify training practices that foster the development of authentic leadership, very few empirical studies have ventured down this path. Thus, this article aims to answer the following two questions:
Methodology
Research Setting and Leadership Development Program
This study is based on data collected from a sample of managers enrolled in a leadership development program given by a Canadian consulting firm (CFC Dolmen). The program lasts 3 years, with 15 days of training each year (5 consecutive days every 4 months, for a total of 45 days). The sessions for the three cohorts are held concomitantly at a retreat location. Two facilitators are assigned to each cohort. The program focuses on five major themes: (a) authenticity, (b) influence and impact, (c) development of self and one’s employees, (d) establishing lasting relationships, and (e) achieving results. Although this program was not designed specifically for this study, the development of authenticity in management was the primary concern of the program’s developers. Hence, the last theme, achieving results, has been added in the last few years after it was noticed that the participants were facing real difficulties transferring their “real self” into an organizational context where, ineluctably, achieving results is always an objective. Thus, the program is designed to replicate the complexity of corporate life, reproducing many elements of a real working environment, including a hierarchy established among the training cohorts, latitude for decision making and responsibilities that increase as participants advance through the program, and completion of projects involving goals and deadlines, both during the training sessions and between sessions. In addition, each participant receives structured coaching throughout the 3 years of the program, both during and between sessions, building on an individual development plan prepared in consultation with the participant’s immediate supervisor. At the same time, participants are required to perform the role of coach for the members of the following cohort. During each year, the participants thus take part in nine coaching meetings during and between the training sessions. The format of this program is in line with suggestions made in several studies indicating that leadership training programs would be more effective if they were spread over a longer period of time and included both seminars and individual coaching (Cooper et al., 2005; Eich, 2008; Kets de Vries & Korotov, 2007).
Participants
The participants were 24 French Canadian middle managers (11 women, 13 men) who had voluntarily enrolled in a leadership development program and agreed to give us an interview (response rate = 40%). Their ages ranged from 36 to 53 years. Fifteen held positions in private companies, eight in public organizations, and one in a quasi-public organization. At the time of the interview, the participants had completed 1, 2, or 3 years of the leadership program. The heterogeneity of the participant pool allowed us to collect recent and detailed observations about what occurred during each year of the program. As mentioned by Vardaman, Amis, and Gondo (2010), conducting research in real time provides researchers with the opportunity to make observations while events are unfolding, which allows participants to recount events that are fresh in their minds. The interview questions were formulated in consequence and were designed to provide a better understanding of events associated with personal development, which may occur at any time throughout the program. Three facilitators who had been involved in the program for many years were also interviewed to examine their views and understanding of the elements of the leadership development program.
Interview Process and Protocol
We conducted a semistructured individual interview with each participant, lasting between 50 and 100 minutes to favor more detailed, in-depth accounts. The purpose of these interviews was to collect examples and descriptions based on the participants’ experiences within the program that had fostered development of their authentic leadership skills. The following are key interview questions posed to generate the data:
Have you had one or more experiences in the context of the training program that significantly affected:
Your knowledge of yourself as a leader
Your openness to others or how you respond to the opinions of others as a leader
The way you act and make decisions as a leader
How you show your emotions to others or say what you really think, in the context of your leadership role
To which feature(s) of the program do you attribute its effectiveness?
While none of the questions directly addressed the process the participants go through during the program, the vast number of experiences the participants reported, combined with the identification of the features of the program that they found effective, allowed a portrait of the individual development process to emerge naturally.
Reliability of the Research Findings and Data Analysis
Several methods were used to ensure the accuracy of the study and its representation of the participants’ voices. After the data were collected, we conducted triangulation of the data between individual interviewees and between participants and facilitators. The interviews with the participants were recorded and transcribed in their entirety, and the transcriptions were then analyzed using thematic content analysis to identify emerging themes. Our analysis was based on methodology developed by Gioia et al. (2012). Thus, in the first-order analysis, each transcript was first analyzed individually to provide a vertical analysis of the interview material. The respondents’ statements were segmented to isolate the “units of meaning,” which were then coded with labels identifying the category of the idea expressed by the respondent in each segment.
In this preliminary analysis of the transcriptions, 163 categories emerged. In the second-order analysis, these categories were merged into themes based on the relationships that could be established among them and on discussions between the authors. At this point, we were thinking at multiple levels simultaneously, that is, “at the level of the informant terms and codes and at the more abstract, 2nd-order theoretical level of themes, dimensions, and the larger narrative—answering the important question ‘What’s going on here?’” (Gioia et al., 2012). This analysis focused on those groups considered representative of all the testimonials and made it possible to identify the significant components of the participants’ journey in connection with the development of the competencies examined in this study. This second-order analysis led to the construction of a map of the emerging themes that included 23 themes and subthemes grouped into two aggregate (or third-order) dimensions: that associated with an authentic leadership development process (divided into two phases) and that associated with the training practices that allowed the participants to progress through the various stages of that development process (divided into three effects fostered by these practices).
Findings
Before answering our two research questions using an inductive approach, we examined whether the leadership development program had indeed fostered the development of the four dimensions of AL. Recognition of these changes was crucial for the validity of this study, as its main contribution lies in exploring the development process and the training practices associated with AL development. The content analysis of the interview transcripts revealed that the training program enabled the participants to develop competencies related to the four dimensions of AL, according to the definition proposed by Walumbwa et al. (2008). However, of these four dimensions, the development of an internalized moral perspective was the least markedly evident. In the appendix, the effects of the training program on the four dimensions of AL are illustrated with excerpts from the interviews.
Our purpose in presenting this model is to provide a foundation to enhance the process of idea generation, dialogue, and action planning that takes place among stakeholders developing new AL development initiatives or improving existing leadership programs. The model of the individual development process includes five steps, grouped into two distinct phases: the exploration phase and the integration phase. To continue the process in the second phase, the program participants needed to successfully complete the first phase. The entire process is shown in the model presented in Figure 1.
Process of developing authentic leadership skills within a training context.
Our analysis of the interview transcripts suggests that most of the participants experienced largely the same five-step process. However, the process was not restricted to a single sequence. The participants presumably underwent the same sequence several times throughout the program. Nor was the process associated with any set timeframe. Rather, for some participants the process took a very short time, whereas for others it took several months or years. In the following sections, we examine each component of the proposed process in light of the interviews.
The Authentic Leadership Development Process: Exploration Phase
During the leadership program, the participants were asked to choose to change one or more elements that they had identified and subsequently developed a heightened awareness of. This choice entailed a process that helps the individual explore who they are, as well as the various development pathways available to them. The exploration phase involves three distinct steps: developing self-awareness, identification of a possible behavior to adopt, and trying out this new behavior. Like the entire development process, this phase is not restricted to any particular timeframe, chronological sequence, or physical location. Indeed, identifying and trying out a new way of behaving can help deepen and strengthen the individual’s new awareness or insight, and thus modify the subsequent steps in an ongoing loop. It also appears that, although in this case the process was set in motion by a leadership development program, each of these steps could occur in the context of training activities within the organizational environment or in any other area of the individual’s life. The three steps of the exploration phase allow participants to select new behaviors that would help improve their ability to carry out their responsibilities.
Step 1: Developing Self-Awareness
This step involves the participants taking stock of the current situation and recognizing their developmental potential. These points of reference then enable the participants to choose how they want to develop, depending on their desires and their willingness to do so. Developing self-awareness should lead the participants to identify their strengths and weaknesses and implies that they can try to change a particular attitude or behavior, should they so choose. Several participants noted that developing their self-awareness was reflected in part by an improved ability to articulate who they are and how they act. They noticed increased self-awareness in various areas, as described in the following paragraphs.
Recognizing ways of acting
This dimension refers to the participants’ ability to clearly see the behaviors or attitudes that they automatically and regularly exhibited in their daily lives. The participants spoke of their increased ability to behave in a conscious way. This also involved increased consciousness of the here and now, which refers to the individual’s ability to recognize how they experience situations and how they are behaving within that situation while it is ongoing. To develop this ability, the participants had to be willing to constantly analyze their reactions, attitudes, and actions. Awareness of their emotions, values and needs, and identification of their past dynamics were the dimensions most commonly reported by participants.
Awareness of their emotions
Becoming aware of their emotions and being able to recognize them emerged as an important component in the participants’ development of self-awareness during the program. In their interviews, many of them highlighted their improved ability to identify and understand how they feel in different situations. For many, it is now a question of not ignoring the emotions they experience, but rather accepting and recognizing them.
Awareness of their needs and values
Identifying their own personal needs emerged as a significant step the participants’ development of self-awareness. This refers to recognizing certain conditions that they feel are essential to their well-being and ability to function well in their environment. Several types of needs were mentioned, including those of both a psychological (e.g., love, recognition, and social affiliation) and physical nature (e.g., rest and exercise). Becoming aware of the needs identified by the other participants also had a positive effect on their ability to recognize and accept their own needs. The process of identifying their needs more clearly enabled the participants to create a more satisfying environment for themselves by enabling them to target the behavior changes that were most pressing, based on the impact these changes would have on satisfying their needs. In addition, by developing a better understanding of what triggered those targeted behaviors, it became easier for the participants to identify alternative behaviors that could potentially yield greater benefits for them, even as they continued to strive to meet the needs that drove the behavior. At the same time, the participants had been asked to identify their values, that is, what they attach great importance to and what they believe. Several participants expressed that, by consciously taking their values into consideration when choosing their behavior, they were more at ease in their various roles in life, and felt a greater sense of coherence among the different spheres of their lives.
Identification of past dynamics
The process of looking back on their past led the participants to identify the roots of their identity (i.e., their values, emotions, behaviors) in their journey from childhood to adulthood, and to shed light on certain typical, recurrent behaviors by better understanding what triggers them. The relationship with authority was a very common theme in the interview transcripts. Analyzing their past relationships with various authority figures, particularly their parents, enabled several participants to better understand their reactions to the authority figures in their current lives, as well as their own way of exercising authority.
Awareness in relation to others
Because leadership involves an interpersonal relationship between leader and follower, for the participants it seemed essential that the development of their self-awareness bring with it a new awareness of the influence they have on others. This appears to have been made possible, particularly by improving the participants’ ability to recognize and understand the behavior of others.
Awareness of others
During their development process, in addition to taking a look at themselves, the participants were prompted to turn their gaze toward others. It appears that the self-awareness that leads to authentic leadership requires an enhancement of the ability to interpret the actions of the people around us. Through sharing, particularly via feedback sessions and peer coaching, the participants were witnesses to the consciousness development process of the other participants, which led them to appreciate the varied reasons for and the possible meanings of the various behaviors found among the individuals in the group. In the same vein, several of the candidates interviewed noted that the ability to better identify what they are feeling themselves has helped improve their ability to recognize the emotions of others.
Awareness of one’s effect on others
The participants revealed that, during their development process, they became more attentive to how others react to their behavior. The process also helped the participants to become aware of their capacity to affect others. Understanding the consequences their behavior has for other people thus led the participants to realize that they could change that behavior to create the impact they want to have.
Step 2: Identifying Possible Behaviors to Adopt
The second step of the exploration phase involves identifying the behaviors that could meet the development needs articulated in the previous step. To do this, the participants needed to have identified, through their development of self-awareness, ways of being or acting that displease them or that they feel are inappropriate or unsatisfactory within the context of their various roles. For many participants, this analysis of their own behavior, prompted by their increased self-awareness, involved one or more periods of critical reflection, during which they questioned how they act, and especially whether their behavior resulted in optimal benefits at both the personal and interpersonal levels. The content analysis revealed that the process of identifying possible behaviors to adopt occurs mainly through two substeps: formulating the developmental issues and setting goals.
Formulating the developmental issues
Formulating the developmental issues is the step that allows the participants to translate new insights and self-awareness into action. It enables the participants to define the first reference points of their development (i.e., the current situation), which they can then refer to when setting development goals (i.e., desired situations). This step appears to be a prerequisite for the subsequent steps in the development process by making it possible to position what the participants are undertaking during the program, by giving those actions meaning, and by providing an integration framework. Over the course of the development process, although the participants sometimes modified their choice of the behaviors they wanted to adopt, the initial issues remained essentially the same.
Setting goals
Based on the developmental issues they had identified, the participants thought of new ways of being or acting that could possibly address those issues. In the interviews, some participants mentioned that, even before joining the training program, they had had some idea of the behaviors they wanted to develop. For these participants, the development of self-awareness helped them position themselves with regard to these behavioral targets, depending on their specific personal issues. The developmental issues and goals of the participants were determined through various activities within the leadership development program. The participants were encouraged to plan their development using various tools, some of which were suggested in the program, including a personal development plan, a commitment made during a session with all the other participants, a commitment made informally with a facilitator or another participant, or a contract written within a coaching relationship. The goals mentioned by the participants in the interviews took several forms. While some were concrete behaviors (e.g., listen more carefully to others), others referred to a state of being (e.g., having the ability to take a step back mentally). Some of the goals involved results to be achieved within the context of the training program; others identified results the participant wanted to achieve directly in the organizational environment or in another sphere of life.
Step 3: Trying Out New Behaviors
Our analysis of the interviews suggests that trying out new behaviors is the step that finally enables the participants to consolidate the exploration phase. This was accomplished by giving the participants the opportunity to determine whether the points raised in the earlier steps were appropriate and whether the selected new behaviors are effective. Trying out these new behaviors can help confirm the new insights and self-awareness, for example, by validating the participants’ understanding of the impact they can have when they change certain ways of acting. This step can also prompt the participants to make adjustments to the previous steps, based on a new understanding of their issues. The stages of developing self-awareness and testing new behaviors can overlap, forming a loop. That is, experimenting with certain behaviors can lead to new insights or help clarify earlier realizations, which will then lead to further testing and so on.
According to the interview results, this step of trying out new behavior prompted the participants to conduct tests, whether in the context of the training program, in their organizational setting, or in other areas of their life. Sometimes the tests were conducted spontaneously, that is, the participants adopted their chosen new behaviors when a situation arose for which they felt that behavior was appropriate. In addition, many of the exercises suggested to the participants within the training program provided them with opportunities to try out certain behaviors. The interview transcripts also revealed the wide variety of spontaneous testing carried out by the participants within the training program and directly related to their specific development goals, such as develop a close relationship with someone who apparently shares nothing in common with the participant, be attentive to what others are saying in conversations, provide feedback, share their emotions, give themselves time to think before acting, or delegate responsibility. Furthermore, in other cases, the participants identified in advance particular situations—involving a certain context or specific people—in which they wanted to make changes. The participants then developed a possible scenario that would allow them to experience that situation in a more satisfactory way when it occurred. Some participants were also prompted to provoke the desired situations in order to try out the chosen behaviors. Many participants referred to this type of major experiment (i.e., those requiring more planning and greater intensity) as “taking action.” Examples of this include meeting a colleague or boss to share some personal issues, changing functions within the organization, ending a relationship, and adopting a new approach to working within one’s professional team.
Several participants mentioned that they felt uncertain or that they were taking a risk by experimenting with new behaviors, which were often related to their needs and fears. These tests were generally outside the participant’s usual comfort zone, forcing them to confront their fears. Overall, it appears that trying out new behaviors allowed the participants to consolidate the gains of the exploration phase by encouraging them to determine whether the approach they have used to date meets their needs and their developmental potential.
The Authentic Leadership Development Process: Integration Phase
The second phase in the development of authentic leadership skills is the integration of new behaviors by the participants. It involves two steps: recognizing the benefits of change and transferring the skills into organizational context.
Step 4: The Trigger—Recognizing the Benefits of Change
This step marks the end of experimentation for the participants. Although they had the opportunity to observe the positive impacts of certain behaviors during the testing step, it appears the phase of integrating the new behavior did not begin until the participants became reasonably convinced of the positive effect of that behavior. It appears that the participants reached this phase when their fears and apprehensions concerning the new behaviors had diminished sufficiently to allow them to recognize the relatively constant efficacy of the new behavior. It also appears that the positive impact of the change is both the source of the participants’ willingness to continue the process and a necessary prerequisite to fully adopting the new behavior. The positive impacts of the new behaviors are mainly reflected in states of well-being, including the following dimensions: increased enjoyment of their work, decreased stress, increased sense of pride, and increased feeling of balance. It also appears that the new ways of acting associated with authentic leadership had many beneficial effects on the participants’ organizations. The three main effects that emerged from the interviews were the following: increase in the effectiveness of the participants and/or members of their team, increased involvement of the participants and/or the members of their team, and improved working environment.
Step 5: Transferring Behaviors and Attitudes to the Workplace
This step is the culmination of the process of developing authentic leadership skills. The participants made this transfer gradually, in part as an extension of the testing step. The activities of the development program are structured to foster gradual, progressive development. It appears that this structure allowed most of participants to pass through the various steps at their own pace so that they were eventually able to transfer their chosen new behaviors to the workplace. Several participants mentioned that having the chance to test some new behaviors in various contexts—increasing the level of risk or uncertainty each time—helped them advance in their development process.
It also appears that many factors related to the organizational context influenced the behavior transfer process. Several participants mentioned that some of these factors helped reduce the perceived risks when trying out new behaviors, particularly: having easy access to feedback from employees, colleagues, and superiors; benefiting from a flexible organizational culture that is open to change; and feeling supported by the members of the organization. Conversely, those participants who reported feeling that their colleagues or superiors were resistant to change and not interested in the participant’s personal development also reported that they had further slowed the experimentation step and, by so doing, were not able to transfer some of the new behaviors. It is interesting to note that many participants changed positions within their organization during the course of the program, and many intimated that they wanted a position that would allow them to put into practice more of their new ways of being and acting.
Three Phenomena That Support the Development Process
The content analysis made it possible to identify various aspects of the training program that helped support progress through the various stages of the development process, despite the discomfiture caused by several of the training activities. Almost everyone interviewed said they had confronted uncomfortable situations within the program itself related to events that came up in the workplace, or resulting from new insights or awareness that arose during the course of the training years. Several participants described the program activities as unpleasant, difficult, uncomfortable, stressful, terrifying, unsettling, confusing, intimidating, challenging, strange, or disturbing, particularly due to the intensity of the training, a feeling of mistrust and unease brought on by certain exercises, or skepticism regarding the program itself. In exploring new ways of acting and new ways of interpreting reality, the participants were asked to enter their discomfort zone, which was usually linked to their development issues, feelings of uncertainty and hesitation, doubts about their abilities, or fears of losing their normal bearings.
The analysis shows that three phenomena, activated by certain training practices, enabled the participants to overcome these feelings of discomfort and, in so doing, fostered the development of authentic leadership (see Figure 2). First, some of the characteristics of the training program helped apply pressure on the participants, which pushed them to progressively take action and come to terms with the increased level of risk associated with this discomfort. This is what we will call the clamp effect. Moreover, the thematic analysis showed that this phenomenon is strengthened by a second one, called the safety-net effect, which helps reduce the participants’ perception of risk and their feelings of discomfort associated with various program activities. The simultaneous impact of these two phenomena significantly fostered the participants’ exploration and experimentation with new behaviors and ways of doing things. Finally, the program’s effectiveness was enhanced when training activities reproduced some characteristics typical of organizations, thus helping the participants move from experimentation to skills transfer; we will call this the organizational simulation effect. The following sections detail these three phenomena, which are activated by the training exercises and reinforce the effectiveness of the program in fostering authentic leadership development.
Roles of three phenomena in experimenting with new skills.
The Clamp Effect
A number of aspects of the program contribute to the clamp effect. During the interviews with the participants, the main features mentioned involved the activities focusing on development issues, belonging to a learning community and making commitments.
Activities Focusing on Personal Development Issues
The structure of the activities offered by the program consistently contributed to putting the participants in situations where they had to confront their discomfort zones. It seems that taking the personal development issues of the participants into consideration when preparing the training activities helped promote their progress through the process.
In the exercises and every time we do anything, it is always: “What is your issue?” . . . It comes up all the time, someone saying: “Why are you working on that?” Because [the program] is there to get you out of your comfort zone. (Interview 22)
Belonging to a Learning Community
The creation of a co-development environment—that is, one in which the participants assist each other in their development—helps build a strong sense of belonging to a learning community. Thus, the development of a feeling of closeness among the participants and the fact that they are mutual witnesses to their personal development issues create a context of transparency and influence, encouraging the participants to make an extra effort when faced with uncomfortable situations. In addition, the participants’ comments also indicate that the learning community acts as a guard, making sure that each participant progresses in keeping with their own development issue. To be accepted within the learning community, many participants emphasized that it was necessary to demonstrate authenticity in their developmental process. Thus, many of the participants mentioned that it was difficult to take part in the development activities without exhibiting authentic behavior.
Making Commitments
It also appears that the fact that the participants were obliged to make various commitments as part of the program pushed them to invest additional efforts in the training activities and to face more difficult situations. The interviewees mentioned several types of commitments, including the more formal commitments set out in the program, particularly a personal development plan, co-signed by the immediate supervisor and the coach, or a verbal agreement between two participants as part of a coaching relationship. Many participants also reported that making some informal commitments—or sometimes simply having other individuals become witnesses to their intentions regarding their development—helped create a sense of obligation, which in turn encouraged them to take action in the context of the program.
In short, the clamp effect is activated by a set of elements that make participants feel pressure to make the necessary efforts and undertake various actions to foster their personal development. While some reported feeling a sense of obligation with regard to certain situations, others described this effect as a stimulus or an incentive to move forward. In most cases, this effect generated a sense of not being able to shirk the activities proposed by the program and, in so doing, avoid dealing with their own development issues. It appears that the main influence of the clamp effect on the participants was to increase their willingness to face the risks related to entering their discomfort zones. Furthermore, it appears that this effect is supported by a complementary phenomenon that was observed in the dynamics of the program, the safety-net effect.
The Safety-Net Effect
According to the participants, the feeling that the program offered a protected environment significantly helped them progress through the various stages of the process by reducing the discomfort they experienced along the way. The majority of participants reported feeling encouraged to experiment with new ways of doing things because the potential consequences that might result from making errors were reduced. To the contrary, many mentioned that the laboratory setting offered by the program led them to view their blunders and their unsuccessful attempts at doing something as an important means of learning through the training.
It appears that this safety-net effect fostered the participants’ openness to the activities and led many to give themselves over to the process to a greater degree. The safety-net effect thus encourages participants to act outside their usual areas of action and, in so doing, to discover new abilities or alternative behaviors that they would not have explored in their usual environment because of the perceived risks. The participants mentioned two main types of factors that were responsible for creating this effect. The first relates to the isolated nature of the training setting and the second to the creation of a work environment that is conducive to development.
The Isolated Nature of the Setting
Holding training sessions in an isolated environment helped promote the participants’ sense of security within the program. First, the activities take place in a physically distant location, which encouraged a feeling of “letting go” that was conducive to experimentation and decreased the perception of risk associated with experimentation in the context of the training activities. Because it brought together people working in different organizations and in different sectors, the training environment seemed safer to the participants; that is, they felt that their actions were less likely to have negative consequences in their usual work environment. In addition, the isolated nature of the training site fostered the rapid development of close and deep relationships based on learning among the various participants. This focus on mutual development particularly encouraged sharing, feedback, and support among the participants, thus facilitating their progress through their personal discomfort zones. In addition, the fact that these relationships were potentially limited to the program context—that is, they may be temporary and not extend beyond the training situation—encouraged the participants to adopt more risky interpersonal behaviors.
A Supportive Climate
A second contributing factor of the safety-net effect is the creation of a climate conducive to learning. Many participants emphasized that the support of the various people involved in the program—with regard to their efforts to explore new ways of acting—helped them progress through the development process. Some participants used the words “kindness” and “gentleness” to characterize the climate of the program. Other participants attributed great importance to the respect and the lack of judgment that they felt from their peers during the various activities. In the same vein, it appears that trust is another aspect of climate that played a significant role for a large number of the participants. Thus, with regard to their personal development, many participants mentioned the importance of trust within their relationships with the people involved in the program (e.g., participant–participant, participant–coach, participant–host), but others also stressed the importance of having trust or confidence in the structure of the program as such. Indeed, the credibility afforded the program activities helped diminish some of the fears and worries the participants felt regarding those activities.
Thus, in a manner that is complementary to the clamp effect, it appears that the safety net provided by the program encourages the progress of the participants through the development process, by reducing the perception of risk with regard to certain program activities and by encouraging participants to experiment. Furthermore, the effects of the safety net gradually diminish as the participants’ experimentation moves beyond the training context.
The Organizational Simulation Effect
The analysis reveals one last phenomenon that significantly helps foster authentic leadership development: the use of organizational simulations as a vehicle for individual development. These simulations refer to activities that reproduce a management environment with a certain degree of fidelity, including elements related to both the physical environment (e.g., running a meeting with an agenda and objectives to be met) and the psychological environment (e.g., deadlines promoting stress and conflict). Thus, as opposed to training activities based mainly on theoretical content or having recourse to simulation exercises based on fictional scenarios, organizational simulations involve situations that are similar to those experienced by the participants in their real work environment. These simulations brought out the participants’ real reactions and behaviors—that is, those they would adopt in their usual environment. This helped the participants gain insight into their behavior and encouraged them to experiment with new ways of doing things. Most of the participants interviewed mentioned that one of the beneficial effects of this similarity between the training and their work context was to facilitate the transfer of new ways of being and doing to their real organizational setting. Thus, activities that required a commitment on the part of participants and those activities whose outcome would have a significant effect on the rest of the program (e.g., involvement in planning and decision making with regard to some training activities; setting up committees whose goals related to the involvement of the participants and the success of learning activities) were reported as significantly contributing to personal development.
[The program] is based on a company. It’s not complicated: you’re part of a company. . . . You have a board, you have the heads of the various committees. . . . You have things to do, you need to work as a team, you have mandates, deliverables. . . . When I explained it to my boss after one week, I told him, “Look, it’s not complicated, it’s like a business.” I could even have told him that, “There are surely others who will soon find fault with the same things about me that bother you.” (Interview 21)
Formal and Informal Activities
The analysis showed that the combination of formal and informal activities within the program successfully created situations similar to those the participants experienced at work. Formal activities refer to the structural aspects of the training, including the compulsory exercises and the requirements set out by the team of facilitators. The components of the program that were identified by participants as being representative of their organizational environment included the following:
Time constraints
Requirement to meet certain performance targets
Obligation to abide by the distribution of decision-making power within the various participant cohorts
Need to identify the mission and values of the learning community
Obligation to cooperate in teams on various projects in the context of committees
Need to elicit the commitment and involvement of their peers in various projects
Need to deal with unexpected situations
Requirement to exercise a leadership role
Feeling of developing within an organization by advancing through various functions
The reproduction of an organizational structure within the program led most of the participants to experiment with new ways of acting in a context that seemed to them to be, to a certain extent, credible and representative of their real work environment.
The informal components of the training refer to the dynamic created by the interactions among the various people involved in the learning group. Thus, conflicts that arise among the participants or the facilitators, informal meetings, festivities outside of the training session, and the development of friendships among various subgroups of individuals are examples of elements that can create informal learning situations. These components of the training can be called informal, as it would be difficult for the training organizers to foresee their occurrence and they are influenced in unpredictable ways by a number of factors including the personalities of the participants and the contextual circumstances related to how the training proceeds.
Amplification of Reactions
It appears that some characteristics of these organizational simulations favor the emergence of complex and animated situations that are conducive to learning. The length of the training sessions; the sustained, ongoing nature of the activities; and the intensity of the relationships that rapidly develop within the learning community all serve to amplify the participants’ reactions by bringing out a wide range of real behaviors and then offering a suitable context in which to analyze those behaviors. In addition, the heavy workload and the investment of effort and time required by the program created situations in which the participants were tired, where their habitual behaviors, reactions, and emotions were amplified.
Alternation Between Action and Reflection
The organizational simulations also favored learning insofar as analysis and reflection activities were scheduled in parallel with the simulations. Thus, while the actual simulation activities brought out the participants’ natural behaviors, such activities are not useful unless they enable the participants to link them to their development process (e.g., by fostering insights, validating the impact of experiments).
Adjustments Require for Transfer to the Workplace
While the creation of a laboratory setting favored the participants’ progression through the development process and facilitated the transfer of skills associated with authentic leadership, many of the participants mentioned the importance of maintaining balance between what is experienced in the training setting and what is implemented in their usual environments. In fact, many reported that the characteristics of the program, taken together, create an environment that is nevertheless distinct from their work environment, which requires an adjustment on their part in order to effectively transfer what they have learned. Several factors that help promote the progression of the participants—for example, the condensed nature of the activities, the unusual intimacy among the people involved, the unusual amount of introspective activities, the climate of the learning community, and so forth—all contribute to making the training environment distinct from the participants’ usual environments. Many participants indicated that they had adapted their experiments over time as they moved away from the training setting and returned to their normal organizational setting. As the clamp effect and safety-net effects of the program are weaker when the participants leave the training environment, they reported having to adjust or pace their experiments to avoid provoking negative effects in their normal environment—an environment where there is less closeness among the individuals, where the people around them are not necessarily engaged in a process of personal development, where access to the support and feedback is limited, and so on.
Discussion
Because research on authentic leadership theory is still in its infancy, Cooper et al. (2005) have asserted that “scholars in this area need to give careful attention to four critical issues [including] ascertaining whether authentic leadership can be taught” (p. 477). As researchers, we were also concerned about the question, “How can it be developed?” These questions are paramount for advancing theory and research on authentic leadership. To address them, the main goals of this study were twofold. First, using a deductive approach, we aimed to investigate whether a training program could foster the development of the four dimensions of authentic leadership identified in the model of Gardner et al. (2005). Our results provide qualitative support for this four-factor model of authentic leadership and suggest that the participants noticed marked development in three dimensions of authentic leadership (self-awareness, relational transparency, and balanced treatment of information), whereas development of the fourth dimension—adoption of an internalized moral perspective—appeared to be more moderate. There may be a connection between this last result and criticism in the literature concerning the moral component of authentic leadership. Indeed, certain researchers assert that the nature of one’s convictions or values cannot be systematically positive and lead to taking moral positions (Shamir & Eilam, 2005; Sparrowe, 2005). In this sense, our results fuel such criticism by suggesting that individuals may develop self-awareness, become more transparent in their relations with others, and show greater openness to differing perspectives on oneself and on one’s position, all without necessarily making decisions or undertaking actions based on personal standards or moral values. Further investigation will be needed to confirm whether the model can be generalized to other settings and other participants.
Second, using an inductive approach, we aimed to contribute to the understanding of the individual development process of authentic leaders who are involved in leadership development programs and to identify which elements of such programs facilitate their progression. Our content analysis revealed that the individual development process consisted of distinct phases and steps, and this is certainly an important outcome of this study. The emergence of this multistep process contributes to our understanding of the dynamics by which participants are prompted to progress through the various stages in the development of their authentic leadership skills. These findings will also contribute to devising training strategies that appropriately target the developmental needs of the participants and foster their progression through the various stages of the process leading to lasting integration and transfer of their AL competencies. Indeed, framing the individual development process in an organizational context—where achieving results is an inevitable objective—appears to be compatible with, even desirable for, AL development, in that it allows integration of behaviors and attitudes that are then more easily transferable to the real-life context. Along the same lines, Cooper et al. (2005) asserted that for leadership development to be authentic it must be what it purports to be, that is, the interventions need to be genuine and take into account the organizational context. In that sense, our results highlight that developing authentic leadership within a complex context—one that replicates, at least in part, the complexity of the organizational context to which that leadership will eventually be transferred—may be an avenue to pursue when implementing such leadership development programs.
Furthermore, this study has improved our understanding of the characteristics of interventions that enable AL development. While some authors (Cooper et al., 2005; Thomas, 2008) suggest that positive growth in leaders is stimulated by trigger events, or what Bennis and Thomas (2002) describe as “crucibles of leadership,” that is, “transformative experience through which an individual comes to a new or an altered sense of identity” (p. 40), others point out the role that leadership development programs may play and the need to broaden the notion of “intervention” to include elements other than seminars. Our results help refine our understanding of this part of the process. In line, Hannah and Luthans (2008) have proposed a cognitive affective processing explanation of positive leadership that deepened the idea of alteration of the self-concept. They suggested that the connections existing between situational cues and aspects of the self-construct can be altered through exposure to new or conflicting information that serve as “tipping points” (Ibarra, 2003). Results from a meta-analysis (Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006) suggest that experience and the enactment of roles of leadership would be key mechanisms for personality trait change associated with the alteration of self required in authentic leader development.
However, it appears difficult to identify what will trigger change in the personal circumstances of an individual and in his or her way of exercising leadership. What might work as a trigger event for one person will not necessarily work for another. In designing a training program, it thus appears more effective to think in terms of establishing training practices that favor the emergence of three factors, namely (a) a clamp effect, fostering the participants’ commitment to facing their development issues; (b) a safety-net effect, encouraging risk-taking and “letting go” in the experiments; and (c) an organizational simulation effect, reproducing many of the features of a managerial environment. These three phenomena appear to be conducive to favoring the occurrence of trigger events during which the individuals are able to gain new insight into how they interact with their environment as human beings and leaders.
These results are consistent with those presented by Eich (2008) indicating that the culture within the training program is one of the crucial elements in student leadership development and learning. His study revealed that a culture of both challenge and support fostered by the program participants themselves allows them to “develop courage and expand their comfort zone through being challenged and encouraged to risk while being supported. Second, students establish trust with self and others through vulnerable, honest dialogue focused on their personal growth when confronting important issues” (p. 182). In line with our results, this underlines the importance of interventions, often informal in nature, targeting the development of a training culture that fosters AL development.
In parallel, Hoffman and Lord (2013) propose a taxonomy of event-level dimensions that could help deepening our understanding of trigger events’ features. They asserted that events that are dynamic, extraordinary, relevant, macro, and positive could prompt self-awareness and self-regulatory processes necessary for leaders to develop authenticity. Indeed, the dynamic dimension of events that does not allow leaders to rely on preexisting self-awareness could favor trial-and-error learning, the extraordinary feature of events could change the leader’s condition and favor personal growth and development, while the relevance of events could promote balanced processing whereby leaders consider multiples viewpoints, which results in more authentic performance behaviors (Gardner et al., 2005). Another dimension of their taxonomy, macro-/micro-level dimension of events, involves that “leader authenticity could be modeled over the series of multiples micro-level events whereby trusting social exchange relationships are strengthened, or by macro-level level events such as crises where leaders actions are notably transparent” (Hoffman & Lord, 2013, p. 565). Further investigation on whether trigger events tend to present combinations of event dimensions may be particularly relevant for the field (Hoffman & Lord, 2013).
Practical Implications
The model presented here will assist researchers and practitioners in designing new authentic leadership development programs or improving existing programs. In addition, the training practices identified in this study, and the phenomena associated with them, are not all equally easy to apply for those who would like to design this type of development programs for managers. Table 1 suggests various levels of control that training facilitators have regarding some of the key elements presented in this study and illustrates each with concrete examples of activities that can be planned.
Level of Control Regarding Actions to Be Planned Within Authentic Leadership Development Programs.
Our analysis shows that the progression of the training activities in the context of organizational simulation is crucial to developing authentic leadership skills. While training professionals have a great deal of control over many components of such programs, it is also clear from our analysis that many situations conducive to learning were informal in nature and depended on factors that are difficult for the organizers to predict or plan.
Limitations of the Study
This research focused on the development of authentic leadership skills within the context of a training program that lasts for a period of 3 years. The fact that the participants we interviewed had not all completed the entire program at the time of the interview may constitute a bias in that it might have affected their ability to have an overall perspective of some aspects of the program such as its structure, progression, or duration. In addition, the data collected for analysis were subjective perceptions, as the participants were asked to share their experience concerning their development and their perception of their transfer of skills. Moreover, the collected comments were analyzed by only one researcher, although the two authors discussed emergence of the thematic tree many times. Furthermore, the proximal sampling method used to form the pool of candidates to be interviewed is also likely to affect the results of this research. In this regard, it should be mentioned that the participants had voluntarily committed to take part in this research project; the level of participant commitment within this type of training program may well be higher than that of a random sample of managers. Moreover, the examination of more than one training program would have strengthened any generalizations based the results. However, such an approach was hampered by the very limited number of programs with the desired characteristics. Finally, the last limitation of this study is that it sheds light on the transfer of learning of participants who were still in the training program or who had very recently completed the program (i.e., 1 to 4 months prior to the interview). Additional research will be useful in assessing the transfer of skills over a longer period of time (e.g., more than a year after completion of the program) in order to confirm the lasting effects of the authentic leadership development training.
Footnotes
Appendix
Development of the Four Dimensions of Authentic Leadership Among Participants.
| Authentic leadership dimension | Representative excerpts |
|---|---|
| Self-awareness | “The biggest difference is that, before participating in the program, I didn’t realize it. Now I’m aware of it. . . . Developing this ability to read—to read people, read their reactions, read the team and read myself.” (Interview 6) |
| All participants reported having experienced an increased awareness of their ways of acting. In particular, this involves recognizing and understanding attitudes and behaviors as well as the needs and values that engender those attitudes and behaviors. | “I would say that what has changed is my ability to reach out to [my employees] and give them [feedback]. And becoming aware of all this. Sometimes we hear things and it goes clear over our heads—in one ear, out the other. We don’t take it in. . . . I have a better understanding of my strengths and weaknesses, and of my ability to affect others.” (Interview 18) |
| “More aware. One of the things I wanted to do, which was very important in the program, was to develop my awareness. Awareness of the things I have to be good at and the things I have more difficulty with.” (Interview 20) | |
| Relational transparency | “Little by little, we succeed in developing more openness and, I think, better communication. We talk more. We go beyond work subjects. We discuss other things, about the person. My employees feel valued as individuals.” (Interview 4) |
| The participants reported showing greater transparency in their relationships as a result of their participation in the program. This was mainly manifested as increased authenticity in discussions, by revealing their sincere thoughts and emotions, as well as a greater tendency to give and receive feedback from peers. | “The fact that I have been approaching people these last three years . . . having the confidence to say, ‘If I’m doing something you don’t like, could you please tell me?’ Not everybody has that courage. . . . Because what you hear isn’t just compliments. The same is true for the other way around, saying, ‘What you are doing affects me.’ This way of addressing the things that affect us—it isn’t something I did before.” (Interview 7) |
| “Basically, I had always been hyper transparent within the team. But when I was promoted, I became less so. Last year, I started having lunches with colleagues on the steering committees and I still do so on a regular basis, so we can talk outside of work. To get to know them, and they can get to know me as well.” (Interview 24) | |
| Balanced information processing | “I was less inclined to listen. I was more likely to just say what I had to say. What I notice now is that my automatic response, that little voice in my head, is always telling me: ‘Listen to what people have to say before you speak.’” (Interview 2) |
| Most of the participants mentioned an increased propensity to listen to and analyze other people’s opinions and to question their own positions. | “By listening until the person is finished, then asking questions to make sure I understand, I can offer better comments that are more focused on the task at hand. Instead of starting off with my own idea. . . . It might be a good idea, but it might not be the right place or the right time. I’ve learned to practice this—listening all the way to the end, I would say. I’ve changed the way I listen.” (Interview 3) |
| “For me, what is interesting is the feedback that you should ask your boss, your peers and your employees to give you. I do it and I’m not complacent about it either. If you really want to improve, you’ll ask the people who will be honest with you. (Interview 22) | |
| Internalized moral perspective (Authentic behavior) | “[I also put more emphasis on] my needs and values. In the sense that I can’t have values outside of work, at home, and not have the same values at work. That’s inconsistent. The values that are most important to me—I also apply them more at work.” (Interview 8) |
| Although the improvement in this dimension emerged less markedly from the analysis of the interview transcripts, several participants did report giving greater importance to consistency between their values and personal standards and how they act and make decisions. | “This also gives you greater legitimacy in your role. And you can define your own values, in keeping with who you want to be as a leader. And if you act in a way that is consistent with your values, keeping them in mind, you’ll be comfortable with your decisions. So just being able to define them and to say that you act accordingly. Whether you are making difficult decisions or easy ones. . . . But for the more difficult decisions, as long as they are consistent with your values and those of the organization, you won’t feel guilty about them. You’ll feel validated in your role.” (Interview 16) |
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a grant from the Fonds de recherche du Québec Société et culture (FRQSC).