Authentic Leadership Education: An empirical discussion from Pakistani higher education

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-461177/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Authentic Leadership Education: An empirical discussion from Pakistani higher education

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-461177/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The authentic style encourages leaders to be mindful of their strengths, weaknesses, and emotions, using practical methods for improving their leadership abilities. Identifying an authentic leader is a description of those who have positive beliefs, lead from the heart, set the highest standards of ethics and morality, and go beyond their interests for their followers' well-being. It is critical to understand where one stands on important moral and professional issues to become an authentic leader and then act on that knowledge. Authentic leaders, although specific characteristics, such as positive psychology, self-awareness, morals and ethics, and a person, transparency, and balanced processing; this study explores authentic leadership strengths and weakness empirically. The link between theory and practice applied settings and helps practitioners add value to professional growth has been discussed. The study also shed light on the importance of workforce development action plans, but the ties outlined herein show that casual relations and additional tests would help confirm the connections.

Management

Authentic leadership

commitment

performance

higher education

Leadership is a topic of considerable interest worldwide, and naturally, extensive research is conducted on it, including knowledge management, knowledge-creating process (Reid, 2014), and the topic of scholar attention (Grimsdottir, Edvardsson, & Durst, 2019). Northouse (2007, p. 3) called it a mechanism in which one person affects a group of people to achieve a common goal. It entails motivating others to follow the vision within the constraints leadership creates through moral authority leaders towards authenticity (Ahmad, Zafar, & Shahzad, 2015). Authentic leadership is a style of leadership that encourages leaders to be mindful of their strengths, weaknesses, and emotions, using practical methods for improving their leadership abilities. Authentic leadership is positively associated with commitment, as it increases followers' feelings of self-efficacy, competence, and trust, as well as their identification with the leader and the organization, resulting in increased levels of engagement (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner, Avolio, & Walumbwa, 2005). Identifying an authentic leader is a description of leaders who have positive beliefs, lead from the heart, set the highest standards of ethics and morality, and go beyond their interests for their followers' well-being. Authentic leaders are defined as role models. They can inspire people and complete complex tasks by capitalizing on a trusting atmosphere (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005).

Kotter (2012) explained the difference between management and leadership and said that although they share specific characteristics, such as communicating with people and achieving organizational objectives, their primary roles are distinct. The critical part of management is to achieve order and continuity through planning, budgeting, scheduling, hiring, and problem-solving. On the other hand, although the prominent role of leadership is to generate movement and positive or adaptive change through processes such as setting a course through visioning, aligning, motivating, and inspiring. Authentic leadership has been promoted as a constructive leadership model that stresses dignity, authenticity, ethics, and moral conduct rather than as a panacea for corruption and greed. The principle has also been described as having direct relevance in the workplace's professional development of leaders. The more leaders are seen as authentic, the more workers recognize and feel mentally motivated, more involved, and more citizen-rated behavior (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009; Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008; Walumbwa, Hartnell, & Oke, 2010).

Researchers confirmed considerable attention in modern research about authentic leadership style and management concerns (Hannah, Avolio, & Walumbwa, 2011; Laschinger & Fida, 2014; Laschinger, Wong, & Grau, 2013; Leroy, Anseel, Gardner, & Sels, 2015; Leroy, Palanski, & Simons, 2012). They describe it “Knowing oneself” as an authentic leader in organizational studies with the idea encountered or found of having control over self through self-awareness, transparency, and practicing self-morality at the workplace (Banks, McCauley, Gardner, & Guler, 2016; George, 2003a; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Georges’ presented his practical idea of purpose and value of a person named authenticity through the book titled Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value based on the positive psychology of individual or/and can result from positive ethical climate (through education and experience), moral education, cultural distinctiveness (Brungardt, 1996) and social embeddedness (Aly & Akpovi, 2001; Kanji, Tambi, & Wallace, 1999; Kotler, 1985) and psychological processing (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Fredrickson & Losada, 2005; Luthans & Avolio, 2003a; Northouse, 2015; Wang, Sui, Luthans, Wang, & Wu, 2014) like aim self-awareness (Duval, Silvia, & Lalwani, 2012). Authentic leadership theoretical components are based on four key aspects of positive psychology, self-awareness, morals and ethics, and a person, transparency, and balanced processing (Northouse, 2015 p, 217).

Literature Review

There is currently no thorough definition of what leadership is, nor is there consensus among theorists about what constitutes a successful or effective leader, and many theories have been produced to this quest. These theoretical distinctions suggested leadership style and commonalities that indicate the need to analyze each approach more closely. Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, and Fleishman (2000) noted as many as 65 classifications or schemes to identify and establish leadership in the field of leadership over the last 60 years. Leadership encompasses the individual and the followers, colleagues, subordinates, community, and culture (Avolio et al., 2009). Transformational leadership was the subject of one-third of the study, establishing it as a norm in leadership studies (Lowe & Gardner, 2000). It has been one of the most successful methods in the last two decades since it meets the needs of employers who want to motivate and encourage their workers to succeed in challenging times. When a leader encourages followers to share a vision and equips them with the tools they need to reach their full potential, this is known as transformational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1994a, 1994b; Bass & Riggio, 2006). According to this theory, leaders raise followers' ambitions and stimulate their higher-order ideals (e.g., altruism), causing them to connect with the leader and his or her vision, feel better about their job, and therefore perform above and beyond basic transactions and base expectations (Avolio et al., 2009). Authentic leadership is a more modern, early-stage leadership theory holding a process of leadership that draws on both positive psychological capacities and a well-developed organizational background, even though there is no firm consensus on its meaning (Wang et al., 2014). If leaders are genuine, they will have greater self-awareness and self-regulated positive behaviors on both leaders and followers, which will result in positive self-growth (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Leroy et al., 2015).

Authentic leadership theory arose when companies were searching for someone to mentor and encourage their employees. Authentic leaders were found to have a profound impact on employee attitudes and actions, which would be highly beneficial to the company (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Avolio et al., 2009; Banks et al., 2016; Emuwa, 2013; Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, et al., 2005; Gardner, Avolio, & Walumbwa, 2005). Due to the changing economic, geopolitical, and technological changes that leaders need to adapt, make them transparent and understand their principles, and lead organizations with an ethical perspective, the importance of authentic leadership extend across multiple areas. As a result, the subject of authentic leadership is creating more interest in the leadership literature, as well as providing practical value to practitioners (Banks et al., 2016; George, 2003b; Laschinger et al., 2013; Lee, Cho, Baek, Pillai, & Oh, 2019; Leroy et al., 2015; Leroy et al., 2012; Mira & Odeh, 2019; Nasab & Afshari, 2019; Opatokun, Hasim, & Hassan, 2013).

Authentic leadership is described in various ways, but all of them have in common that leaders are depicted as having self-awareness and a personal point of view that represents consistency regarding their beliefs and convictions (Luthans & Avolio, 2003b). Authentic leaders are deeply committed to their position as leaders and operate based on their strong beliefs and convictions (Shamir & Eilam, 2005). Avolio, Gardner, and Walumbwa (2007) establish a theory-based measure of authentic leadership that includes self-awareness, expressing oneself through transparency, objectivity through morals and ethics, and self-regulation through balanced processing for the leader. Since then, research using Authentic Leadership has found links between authentic leadership and critical work-related attitudes and behaviors (e.g., followers' organizational citizenship actions, engagement, happiness, and performance) that are close to those found for transformational leadership. This study undertakes the authentic leadership quest testing in pakistani higher education setting knowing the significance of Authentic leadership becoming phenomena of professionally successful, morally sound, and intentionally reflective education practices (Begley, 2006; Begley, 2007; Begley & Stefkovich, 2007). This leadership style entails a sincere approach to leadership and a positive, accessible, imaginative, and inventive response to social situations; this study implies the concept in Pakistan's higher education sector, which is in its early stages.

Psychology of authenticity (individual and leadership perspective)

Authenticity describes an individual who lives according to his true self, personal beliefs instead of external demands of society, such as social norms, relationships, and duties (Wood, Linley, Maltby, Baliousis, & Joseph, 2008). The integrity of the individual is dependent upon finding an authentic faith and therefore being true to himself and herself. That the moral compromises inherent in bourgeois and theological ideologies put a person's integrity in jeopardy if he or she wishes to live a natural, self-determined life. Ethically and existentially, people are being called to live authentic lives, both in their personal lives and professional lives (Holt, 2012). It entails resisting external forces and choosing a direction that the individual's inner conscience will protect. Being true to oneself and finding means acting in ways representing an authentic individual refers to authentic leadership that helps them create a lasting value (George, 2003b). In other words, it is like presenting just one aspect to others, authenticity articulating the entire self to say, to be honest, one must first understand their true self, which necessitates self-awareness, mindfulness, and acceptance of oneself. Duignan and Bhindi (1997) noted that The aspiration for the "authentic self" is strongly depicted in the classical debate and contended that for authentic leadership, “authentic relationships” are not only desirable, but also essential. Affinity of perceptions offers a framework in which to comprehend one's position in the "bigger picture." It helps to construct the "synthetic self" in an interlinked and interdependent context for meaningful interaction.

Block (1993) suggested a leadership that informs authentic leadership helps in searching for an alternative to traditional leadership approaches with a critical examination of the principles and assumptions that underpin conventional leadership: power, direction, and supremacy. The leadership stewardess (care through building environment) as an alternative connects in confidence for another where leaders are accountable for using their influence to expand the organization's and individual's overall interest (Duignan & Bhindi, 1997). Authenticity becomes a product of relationships and interrelationships, not just a characteristic of the leader. The quality of relationships has a significant impact on all else that occurs in organizations, including leadership quality. Many studies have recognized the importance of trusting and caring relationships in the creation of a community or environment (Bird, Wang, Watson, & Murray, 2012) in which values such as honesty, integrity, fairness, commitment, justice, equality, independence, and autonomy are internalized and expressed through daily practices and procedures (Bird, Wang, Watson, & Murray, 2009; Case & Smith, 2013; Craig & Gustafson, 1998; De Cremer, van Dijke, & Bos, 2006; Leroy et al., 2012; Liggans et al., 2019; Xiong, Lin, Li, & Wang, 2016). Authentic leadership connects authentic self, relationships, learning, governance and organization assumptions, views, and behavior, employing significant human values ethically and morally enhancing leadership and management practices.

The above literature helps us concluding that authentic leadership is an inner self-process that is beneficial for individuals and organizations.

Authentic leadership and commitment

Hodgkinson (1991, p. 130) argues that his argument's central purpose that the ethical imperative of raising the personal consciousness of value—to advancing authenticity among administrators. He describes authenticity as being faithful to one's own set of beliefs then, become the submission of whatever morality resides within an individual. He claims that increased self-awareness is healthy and that it will contribute to the correct behavior. The wealth of Self-awareness implies and includes self-critique of values, in which a leader must lead helping an active quest for individual worth. The leadership's legitimacy derives primarily from the consistency of personal devotion to a unique collection of values and then from the relationship of these values to followership through communication and interaction with others.

Therefore, the leader's relationship with the led must be authentic for all time (p, 133). Consistent leadership behaviors enable followers' inner motivation to build mutual trust (leader and follower). Under close supervision, followers are actively involved in productive group activities, showing self-drives towards job satisfaction (Allen & Meyer, 2000). The inner peace of followers and increased productivity with workgroups resiliently drive in a dynamic leadership role (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). It happens for leadership behavioral integrity and alignment between action and words to motivate followers—practical activities of authentic leaders and faithful self-appeal trigger followers' motivation (Simons, 2002).

Leaders' behavioral integrity has several outcomes in organizational studies, like practicing ethics and morality at the workplace. These factors are essential to align followers' perceived motivation to a leaders’ vision. Leaders often talk about their character and idea to workplace ethics, self, and others' moral conduct. Leaders' words (speeches and formal communication) help followers understand the line of action required to follow, and leaders who are practicing morality, having higher self-ethics, and self-awareness drive followers’ motivation to pursue their vision. A self-aware individual in a leadership position promotes value-based culture to practice at the workplace. Consistent and transparent moral values for self-and-others help build and inculcate cultures of higher ethical standards in a practical way. Leaders' balanced processing boosts followers’ trust and behavioral alignments to accept diverse roles at work, meeting management expectations, creating values at the workplace, and moral cling to fulfill their promises. Leadership consistent ethical behavior can positively influence their follower’s psychology to transform their loyalties and feel “like home” at the workplace to increase productivity and reduce turnover intentions (Lee et al., 2019). Authentic leadership predictors, i.e., self-awareness, transparency, balanced processing, and moral ethics, stand for “knowing one-self in a better way” who can make the right decision at the right time and in the right direction for self and others. While communicating their vision, authentic leaders are still true to themselves and avoid activities that can mislead, which eventually enhances gaining followers’ trust. Hence, leadership behavioral integrity induces followers decreased turnover intentions (Leroy et al., 2012; Xiong et al., 2016).

The above literature helps in determining that authentic leadership positively influences followers to produce commitment.

Authentic Leadership and Performance

Bill George (2003) highlighted the importance of moral behavioral practices (authentic leadership essentials) to develop organizational leaders' confidence. The behavioral integrity of employees and leaders has of critical significance in corporate life to achieve goals. It drives the follower’s motivation to achieve expectations about performance outcomes. Unfortunately, in many organizations, reality, authenticity, and spiritual experiences are the exception rather than the rule (Duignan & Bhindi, 1997). Many people assume that the way to success must be cloaked in lies, if not outright deceit (Alon & Higgins, 2005; Buchanan & Fitzgerald, 2007). Some executives hide behind a mask of sincerity and a veneer of respectability, seldom exposing their true selves (Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004). Some people have become so used to dramatic success that they cannot remember their true selves (Duignan & Bhindi, 1997).

It is critical to understand where one stands on important moral and professional issues to become an authentic leader and then act on that knowledge. Leaders' behavioral integrity must gain trust to accomplish a follower’s performance so that comfort for being open in communication to share concerns between performance expectations and setting actual targets can amply establish. How can anyone expect to guide others toward a "vision" if they aren't sure where they stand on essential educational and moral issues? The term "morality" is used in this context to refer to the conduct of human affairs, not to any particular religious concept. Authentic leadership is a style of leadership that focuses on establishing a leader's credibility through open and truthful relationships with followers that respect their input and are founded on moral principles. Generally, authentic leaders are optimistic individuals with accurate self-concepts that advocate transparency. Authentic leaders can increase individual and team success by building confidence and attracting enthusiastic support from their subordinates. Many leaders and leadership coaches have entirely adopted this strategy, seeing authentic leadership as a viable alternative to leaders who prioritize profits and stock price over people and ethics (Bannister, 1986; Bass, 1985; Buil, Martínez, & Matute, 2019; Chen, Kirkman, Kanfer, Allen, & Rosen, 2007). Authentic leadership is an increasing field of academic leadership research that has recently evolved from obscurity to the beginnings of a fully mature definition (Gardner, Cogliser, Davis, & Dickens, 2011; Sagnak, Ada, Kazancoglu, & Tayaksi, 2017)

Leroy et al. (2012) found that leaders' integrity drives followers' specific performance through trust in leaders. Leaders and individuals practicing balanced processing, morals, and ethics can set up social systems in organizations causing satisfaction among workers. Self-awareness helps through balanced processing in recognizing the need of developing an organizational culture for setting collective vision, behaviors, and morality for the common good, which supports understanding the strengths and weakness of themselves and others to influence positively (Avolio, 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Transparency and morality increase followers' trust in leadership decision-making abilities to keep the balance between social groups and maintain sustainable culture to cope with the pressure of performance improvements (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Shamir & Eilam, 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008).

The above's literature lines concluded that authentic leadership positively influences followers' productivity or performance.

Developing hypothetical framework

Several types of the research reported the effectiveness of an authentic leadership style for management concerns (Hannah et al., 2011; Laschinger & Fida, 2014; Laschinger et al., 2013; Leroy et al., 2015; Leroy et al., 2012). In which authentic leader in organizational found of having control over self through self-awareness, transparency, and practicing self-morality at the workplace (Banks et al., 2016; George, 2003a; Walumbwa et al., 2008) through education and experience, i.e., moral education, cultural distinctiveness (Brungardt, 1996) and social embeddedness (Aly & Akpovi, 2001; Kanji et al., 1999; Kotler, 1985) and psychological processing (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Duval et al., 2012; Fredrickson & Losada, 2005; Luthans & Avolio, 2003a; Northouse, 2015; Wang et al., 2014). Authentic leadership theoretical components are based on four key aspects of positive psychology, self-awareness, morals and ethics, and a person, transparency, and balanced processing (Northouse, 2015 p, 217).

In the line of the above literature guide, the following framework has been reached for this study.

Sample, procedure, and method

A Likert scale self-administered survey questionnaire was designed and circulated among public and private sector university employees in Rawalpindi and Islamabad. Overall, 400 printed questionnaires floated randomly for convenience and quick data gathering, out of which 323 valid questionnaires were returned and selected for empirical testing and computational methods in SPSS (Blinded for review 4). Participants average age reported 40 years old (SD = 2.44) while 70 percent of the male. The average experience of selected respondents correctly was 9.75 years (SD= 0.74). Items randomly numbered, and anonymity of the respondents' personal information kept intact despite few demographic variables such as gender, age, organization type, job, and education level (Neuman, 2007; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Participants receive the survey questionnaire to measure authentic leadership (15 items) containing self-awareness, balanced-processing, transparency, and moral/ethics developed by (Avolio et al., 2007; Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2007) & productivity and commitment (Fry & Matherly, 2006). The individuals reported frequency recorded by a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5.

Table 1 through determining information about validity and reliability of the construct, i.e., Cronbach alpha, AVE (average variance extracted) convergent and discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) popular in contemporary research (data reference blinded for review). The Cronbach alpha of authentic leadership (x) measure X¹) Balanced Processing (.863), X²) Moral Ethics (.821) X³) Self-awareness (.776) and X⁴) Transparency (.856), Y¹Commitment (.897), Y² Performance (.908). All values are above >.70 comes under an acceptable range of valid constructs (Ferdinand, 2006; Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2016). The average variance extracted is also above.50, which is within the required range (.40 to.70) (Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2014). Discriminant validity also explains all sub-constructs validity of items representing construction (AL) for better understanding (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). The discriminant validity threshold irrespective of negative or positive value and values in table 1 results meet criteria suggested 0.85 (Kline, 2011), which can be up to.90 (Gold, Malhotra, & Segars, 2001).

Table 1

Construct reliability, convergent and discriminant validity

Fornell - Larcker Criterion		Alpha	CR	AVE	1	2	3	4	5	6
1	Balanced Processing	0.863	0.863	0.679	0.824
2	Commitment	0.897	0.900	0.697	0.602	0.835
3	Moral Ethics	0.821	0.817	0.533	0.370	0.290	0.730
4	Performance	0.908	0.907	0.581	0.597	0.397	0.602	0.762
5	Self-awareness	0.776	0.780	0.543	0.362	0.248	0.692	0.566	0.737
6	Transparency	0.856	0.855	0.549	0.597	0.477	0.521	0.633	0.665	0.741

Figure 2 explains the outer weight/loading of the model highlighting absolute values and the inner model total effect of the model. Balanced processing àCommitment.427 àPerformance .425, Balanced processing (Moral/Ethics.313 Moral/Ethics à Commitment .397 à Performance .90 à self-awareness.566 self-awareness à commitment .241, à performance .45 à Transparency .577 à Commitment .218 (Performance.217 while all loading weights are having relatively higher values. Figure 3 explains the total effect of authentic leadership construct by combining four sub-components to determine total effects, outer weight/loading of the model, highlighting the model's absolute values. Path authentic leadership à commitment .465 à Performance .686 showing the stronger predicted value of performance over-commitment. Henceforth, Table 3 including mean, t statistics, and p-value to determine the hypothesis.

Table 2

Model Fit

Measure	Estimate	Threshold	Interpretation
CFI	1	>0.95	Excellent	>0.95
SRMR	0.008	<0.08	Excellent	<0.08
RMSEA	0.000	<0.06	Excellent	<0.06
P Close	0.509	>0.05	Excellent	>0.05

We conducted the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (Hu & Bentler, 1999) cutoff-criteria AMOS V 24 plugin developed by (Gaskin & Lim, 2018) to determine the model fits. The model fit index for the model authentic leadership four sub-constructs, Self-awareness, Balanced processing, Moral/Ethics and Transparency, Commitment and Performance showed a good fit: CFI = 1; P Close = 0.509; RMSEA = 0.000; SRMR = 0.008 ( see Table 2).

Table 3

Mean, STDEV, T-Values, P-Values

Path	Mean ± STDEV	T Stats	P-Value support	Path	Mean + STDEV	T Stats	P-Value support
ALà CMT	0.4931 ± 0.0609	8.0948	Yes	ALà PER	0.6724 ± 0.0497	13.533	Yes
BPà CMT	0.4295 ± 0.0666	6.4528	Yes	BPà PER	0.2895 ± 0.0660	4.3877	Yes
MEà CMT	0.0643 ± 0.0731	0.8799	No	MEà PER	0.2586 ± 0.0600	4.3091	Yes
SAà CMT	-0.0802 ± 0.0642	1.2487	No	SAà PER	0.1174 ± 0.0639	1.8373	No
TRà CMT	0.2166 ± 0.0765	2.8325	Yes	TRà PER	0.2113 ± 0.0644	3.2809	Yes

^{AL (authentic leadership); BP (Balanced Processing), ME (Moral/ethics), SA (Self-awareness), TR (Transparency);}^{T-value= (|O/STDEV|)}^*^{Value of T statistics}^≥^{1.65 = 90 %;}^≥^{1.96 = 95 %; ≥ 2.57 = 99 %}

Table 3 explains the significance level of authentic leadership predictor and its constructs with performance and commitment. P-value and T-statistics outputs explain measurement model structural path significance and outer-loadings probability accurate values (Efron & Tibshirani, 1998). Cutoff criteria of t-values ≥ 1.65 = 90%, ≥ 1.96 = 95% and ≥ 2.57 = 99% significance which shown that AL› Commitment path coefficient.493, (t-values is 8.095, i.e.≥ 2.57 and P ≤0.001); AL › Performance path coefficient .672, (t-values are 13.533, i.e.≥ 2.57 and P ≤0.001) positive significant predictor in the line of past studies (Ribeiro, Duarte, Filipe, & Torres de Oliveira, 2019; Semedo, Coelho, & Ribeiro, 2016; Xiong et al., 2016).

The path coefficient t-values of performance were noted higher than the commitment; we assessed AL sub-constructs path coefficients separately to investigate reasons. It revealed that all subcomponents of the AL do not have positive and significant effects on outcome variables. Table 3 through the information of path coefficients of balanced processing to commitment.423(t-values are 6.45, i.e., ≥ 2.57 and p-value ≤ 0.001); Balanced processing to performance.289 (t-values are 4.387, i.e., ≥ 2.57 and p-value ≤ 0.001. The path coefficient of second construct transparency .216 (t-values are 2.832, i.e., ≥ 2.57 p-value ≤ 0.01; transparency and performance .211, (t-values is 3.289, i.e., ≥ 2.57 p-value ≤ 0.01. Both predictors remained positive and significant predictors of commitment and performance. However, the other two constructs' variation, i.e., Moral/Ethics to commitment path coefficient .063 t-values, are 0.87, ≥ 1.65 p-value ≥ 0.05. It is noteworthy that the Moral-ethics path coefficient.257 -values are 4.30, i.e., ≥ 2.57 p-value ≤ 0.01 remains a significant predictor of performance. In contrast to this self-awareness to commitment path coefficient -.0802 t-values are 1.24, ≥ 1.65 p-value ≥ 0.05); and self-awareness to performance path coefficient 0.117 t-values is 1.83, ≥ 1.65 P ≥ 0.010 p-value ≥ 0.05. self-awareness does not predict either of the expected outcomes in the current study.

General discussions and future directions

Authentic leadership developments are essential and necessary for academic settings (Begley & Stefkovich, 2007) for practically learning about ethics (Opatokun et al., 2013) and causing enhanced motivations among staff (Ahmad et al., 2015). Opatokun et al. (2013) hypothesized AL attributes separately to test in academic settings replicated in the current study. Results of authentic leadership, a predictor of perceived commitment and performance of the employee in organizational settings, found consistent with the past several studies (Darvish & Rezaei, 2011; Emuwa, 2013; Mira & Odeh, 2019; Nasab & Afshari, 2019; Ribeiro, Gomes, & Kurian, 2018; Wang et al., 2014). However, a more substantial effect of performance and weaker commitment predictability has been reported as a critical finding of this study. The study has demographical limitations such as gender, age, experience, and sample size, because which results are not generalizable. Keeping public and private sectors intact as a target population in current research; however, future research may conduct separately and augmented control variables.

Getting awareness of one's thoughts can convert into a more vital ability to create an environment. In brief, today, higher education needs employees who can exemplify and implement Authentic action that builds and supports the organization's ethical climate. Analysis reveals that these leaders are present in Pakistani higher education settings. We expect that our result would add to the existing knowledge and Information on Authentic Leadership Development related to the educational workplace. It may help plan a growth strategy, allowing the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan to set up a leadership structure that would become a national academic employee development tool.

Authentic leaders are not a new phenomenon, but they are now more critical than ever in leading with dignity, fairness, ethical and moral conduct. Leaders are needed who are authentic to themselves and, therefore, capable of being faithful to others. The theory was also viewed as the direct implementation of leaders in the workplace's professional development. The study shows two aspects of authentic leadership 1) and confirms that authentic leadership is a positive and significant predictor of commitment and performance. While it has a comparatively weaker association than performance, i.e., authentic leadership combines effects (a composite average variable including self-awareness, balanced processing, transparency, and moral/ethics) 2) each AL predictor as a separate measure to determine effect over organizational outcomes commitment and performance. Findings support AL theory of moral reasonings showing authentic leadership predicts both outcomes positively and significantly. We can view the other aspect of critical life experiences or significant events of individuals that stimulates life changes from each predictor's different results. Self-awareness and morals/Ethics of a person do not help achieve commitment, while self-awareness also has an insignificant relationship with performance. There is a need for indigenous theories that either can produce alternative views or align new meanings with the existing approach to find a sense of self-awareness. Lack of empirical evidence in the current context generates recent phenomena to investigate and understand new assumptions by which individual life events might have molded their psychology to unknown paths. Self-awareness theory assumes that as we pay attention to ourselves, we measure ourselves by our beliefs by introspection or some other means. In line with its association with authentic leadership, self-awareness of one's leadership has various attitudinal and cognitive outcomes, including self-change without concern for expected results, i.e., commitment and performance. Individuals strong in self-awareness appear to be conscious of their emotions, behaviors, and motivations. There is a significant connection between self-awareness and the philosophy of mind, and both abilities tend strongly associated with self-deception as Internal self-awareness requires self-monitoring and understanding one's emotional condition. A change in self-awareness would contribute to a rise in successful deceit for personal gains only.

Practical and social implications

The link between theory and practice is essential in applied settings and helps practitioners add value to professional growth programs. Practitioners also recognize the importance of workforce development action plans, but the ties outlined herein show that casual relations and additional tests would help confirm the connections. The literature should be undertaken as a follow-up to this study to quantitatively quantify and aggregate the research centered on the research issue on behavioral integration theories of leadership. Theoretical and professional growth is beneficial in development environments where leaders and followers are willing to reflect and analyze themselves individually and to know which factor is helping in strengthening the theory and which not. A deeper understanding may be built by understanding how human integration theories approach the modern age or different demographic settings. Authentic leadership was not offered as a universal remedy for dishonesty and materialism but as a model of positive leadership emphasizing dignity, fairness, ethical and moral conduct. But in the 21st century, where things are changing drastically, it can be dealing with mistrust and gossip to productivity growth and lower inner appeal to commitment in the corporate world. Focusing on leadership, especially authenticity in leadership, can help organizations achieve a positive long-term outcome; knowing why morals and ethics and self-awareness are not helping increase either commitment or productivity and may help to understand psychological shifts of self-awareness individual authenticity.

Acknowledgement

An informed consent was obtained to respondents of this study

No funding received to conduct this study

No conflict of interest reported to this study

Ahmad, I., Zafar, M. A., & Shahzad, K. (2015). Authentic leadership style and academia’s creativity in higher education institutions: intrinsic motivation and mood as mediators. Transylvanian review of administrative sciences, 11(46), 5-19.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (2000). Construct validation in organizational behavior research: The case of organizational commitment. In Problems and solutions in human assessment (pp. 285-314). Boston, MA: Springer.

Alon, I., & Higgins, J. M. (2005). Global leadership success through emotional and cultural intelligences. Business Horizons, 48(6), 501-512.

Aly, N., & Akpovi, J. (2001). Total quality management in California public higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 9(3), 127-131. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880110399077

Avolio, B. J. (2005). Leadership development in balance: Made/born: Psychology Press.

Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The leadership quarterly, 16(3), 315-338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001

Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2007). Authentic leadership questionnaire. Published by Mind Garden inc, 2, 1-5.

Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. The leadership quarterly, 15(6), 801-823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.003

Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621

Banks, G. C., McCauley, K. D., Gardner, W. L., & Guler, C. E. (2016). A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy. The leadership quarterly, 27(4), 634-652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006

Bannister, B. D. (1986). Performance outcome feedback and attributional feedback: Interactive effects on recipient responses. Journal of applied psychology, 71(2), 203-210. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.2.203

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. The Academy of Management Review, 12( 4), 756-757. https://doi.org/10.2307/258081

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994a). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. London, United kingdom: Sage.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994b). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. The International Journal of Public Administration, 17(3-4), 541-554. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900699408524907

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership: Psychology press.

Begley, P., T,. (2006). Self-knowledge, capacity and sensitivity: Prerequisites to authentic leadership by school principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(6), 570-589. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230610704792

Begley, P. T. (2007). Editorial introduction: Cross-cultural perspectives on authentic school leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(4), 353-366. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143207075386

Begley, P. T., & Stefkovich, J. (2007). Integrating values and ethics into post secondary teaching for leadership development: Principles, concepts, and strategies. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(4), 398-412. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230710762427

Bird, J. J., Wang, C., Watson, J., & Murray, L. (2012). Teacher and principal perceptions of authentic leadership: Implications for trust, engagement, and intention to return. Journal of School Leadership, 22(3), 425-461. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461202200302

Bird, J. J., Wang, C., Watson, J. R., & Murray, L. (2009). Relationships among principal authentic leadership and teacher trust and engagement levels. Journal of School Leadership, 19(2), 153-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460901900202

Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Brungardt, C. (1996). The making of leaders: A review of the research in leadership development and education. Journal of leadership studies, 3(3), 81-95. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179199700300309

Buchanan, D., & Fitzgerald, L. (2007). Improvement evaporation: why do successful changes decay. London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.

Buil, I., Martínez, E., & Matute, J. (2019). Transformational leadership and employee performance: The role of identification, engagement and proactive personality. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 303(2-3), 64-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.06.014

Case, S. S., & Smith, J. G. (2013). The genesis of integrity: Values and virtues illuminated in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam for workplace behavior. In Integrity in Organizations (pp. 307-344): Springer.

Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007). A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of applied psychology, 92(2), 331-346. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.331

Craig, S. B., & Gustafson, S. B. (1998). Perceived leader integrity scale: An instrument for assessing employee perceptions of leader integrity. The leadership quarterly, 9(2), 127-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(98)90001-7

Darvish, H., & Rezaei, F. (2011). The imapct of authentic leadership on job satisfection and team commitment. Management Marketing, 6(3), 421-436.

De Cremer, D., van Dijke, M., & Bos, A. E. (2006). Leader's procedural justice affecting identification and trust. Leadership Organization Development Journal, 27(7), 554-565. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730610692416

Duignan, P. A., & Bhindi, N. (1997). Authenticity in leadership: An emerging perspective. Journal of Educational Administration, 35(3), 195-209. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578239710170119

Duval, T. S., Silvia, P. J., & Lalwani, N. (2012). Self-awareness & causal attribution: A dual systems theory. NY, New York: Springer Science & Business Media.

Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. (1998). The problem of regions. The Annals of Statistics, 26(5), 1687-1718.

Emuwa, A. (2013). Authentic leadership: Commitment to supervisor, follower empowerment, and procedural justice climate. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 6(1), 45-65.

Ferdinand, A. (2006). Research methods of management. Semarang: BP UNDIP.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312

Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing. American psychologist, 60(7), 678-686. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.678

Fry, L. W., & Matherly, L. L. (2006). Spiritual leadership and organizational performance: An exploratory study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management,(11-16 Ağustos) Atlanta-Georgia.

Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). “Can you see the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The leadership quarterly, 16(3), 343-372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.003

Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Emergent trends and future directions. Authentic leadership theory practice: Origins, effects development, 387-406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001

Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. The leadership quarterly, 22(6), 1120-1145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.007

Gaskin, J., & Lim, J. (2018). Merge SRW Tables. AMOS Plugin.. Gaskination's StatWiki.

George, B. (2003a). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value: John Wiley & Sons.

George, B. (2003b). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value. In (pp. 241 – 261). CA, USA: Jossey-Boss, John Wiley & Sons.

Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of management information systems, 18(1), 185-214. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2001.11045669

Grimsdottir, E., Edvardsson, I. R., & Durst, S. (2019). Knowledge creation in knowledge-intensive small and medium sized enterprises. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 10(1), 75-94. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJKBD.2019.098236

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. vectors. In (7^th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): Sage publications.

Hair, J. F., Hult, T., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM): California: SAGE Publications Inc.

Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2011). Relationships between authentic leadership, moral courage, and ethical and pro-social behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(4), 555-578.

Hodgkinson, C. (1991). Educational leadership: The moral art. New York, USA: State University of New York Press.

Holt, K. (2012). Authentic journalism? A critical discussion about existential authenticity in journalism ethics. Journal of mass media ethics, 27(1), 2-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/08900523.2012.636244

Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Kanji, G. K., Tambi, A. M. B. A., & Wallace, W. (1999). A comparative study of quality practices in higher education institutions in the US and Malaysia. Total Quality Management, 10(3), 357-371.

Kline, R. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th editions). New York: Guilford Publications, Inc.

Kotler, P. (1985). Strategic Marketing for Educational Institutions Prentice Hall. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Fox, Karen

Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading Change. Boston, USA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Laschinger, H. K. S., & Fida, R. (2014). A time-lagged analysis of the effect of authentic leadership on workplace bullying, burnout, and occupational turnover intentions. European Journal of Work Organizational Psychology, 23(5), 739-753. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2013.804646

Laschinger, H. K. S., Wong, C. A., & Grau, A. L. (2013). Authentic leadership, empowerment and burnout: a comparison in new graduates and experienced nurses. Journal of nursing management, 21(3), 541-552. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2012.01375.x

Lee, J. J., Cho, J., Baek, Y., Pillai, R., & Oh, S. H. (2019). Does ethical leadership predict follower outcomes above and beyond the full-range leadership model and authentic leadership?: An organizational commitment perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1-27.

Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Gardner, W. L., & Sels, L. (2015). Authentic leadership, authentic followership, basic need satisfaction, and work role performance: A cross-level study. Journal of management, 41(6), 1677-1697. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312457822

Leroy, H., Palanski, M. E., & Simons, T. (2012). Authentic leadership and behavioral integrity as drivers of follower commitment and performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 255-264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1036-1

Liggans, G., Attoh, P. A., Gong, T., Chase, T., Russell, M. B., & Clark, P. W. (2019). Military Veterans in Federal Agencies: Organizational Inclusion, Human Resource Practices, and Trust in Leadership as Predictors of Organizational Commitment. Public Personnel Management, 0091026018819025.

Lowe, K. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2000). Ten years of the leadership quarterly: Contributions and challenges for the future. The leadership quarterly, 11(4), 459-514. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00059-X

Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003a). Authentic leadership development. Positive organizational scholarship, 241, 258.

Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003b). Authentic leadership development. In Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 242-271). San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler.

Mira, M., & Odeh, K. (2019). The mediating role of authentic leadership between the relationship of employee training and employee performance. Management Science Letters, 9(3), 381-388. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2018.12.011

Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., & Fleishman, E. A. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems. The leadership quarterly, 11(1), 11-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00041-7

Nasab, A. H., & Afshari, L. (2019). Authentic leadership and employee performance: mediating role of organizational commitment. Leadership Organization Development Journal, 40(5), 548-560. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-01-2019-0026

Neuman, L. W. (2007). Social Research Methods, 6/E: Pearson Education India.

Northouse, P. G. (2007). Culture and leadership. In M. A. Vail (Ed.), Leadership: Theory practice (4th ed., pp. 395). Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE.

Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7^th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA.: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Opatokun, K. A., Hasim, C. N., & Hassan, S. S. S. (2013). Authentic leadership in higher learning institution: A case study of international Islamic university Malaysia (IIUM). International Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(1), 49-66.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Reid, S. (2014). Knowledge influencers: Leaders influencing knowledge creation and mobilization. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(3), 332-357. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-01-2013-0013

Ribeiro, N., Duarte, A. P., Filipe, R., & Torres de Oliveira, R. (2019). How authentic leadership promotes individual creativity: The mediating role of affective commitment. Journal of Leadership Organizational Studies, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051819842796

Ribeiro, N., Gomes, D., & Kurian, S. (2018). Authentic leadership and performance: the mediating role of employees’ affective commitment. Social Responsibility Journal, 14(1), 213-225. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-06-2017-0111

Sagnak, M., Ada, N., Kazancoglu, Y., & Tayaksi, C. (2017). Quality function deployment application for improving quality of education in business schools. Journal of Education for Business, 92(5), 230-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2017.1339661

Semedo, A. S. D., Coelho, A. F. M., & Ribeiro, N. M. P. (2016). Effects of authentic leadership, affective commitment and job resourcefulness on employees’ creativity and individual performance. Leadership Organization Development Journal, 37(8), 1038-1055. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-02-2015-0029

Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. (2005). “What's your story?” A life-stories approach to authentic leadership development. The leadership quarterly, 16(3), 395-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.005

Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers' words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13(1), 18-35.

Walumbwa, F., O, Avolio, B., J, Gardner, W., L, Wernsing, T., S, & Peterson, S., J. (2007). Authentic Leadership: Development and Validation of a Theory-Based Measure†. Journal of management, 1(34), 89-126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308913

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 Development, 34(1), 89-126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308913

Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural justice climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: a cross-level investigation. Journal of applied psychology, 95(3), 517. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018867

Wang, H., Sui, Y., Luthans, F., Wang, D., & Wu, Y. (2014). Impact of authentic leadership on performance: Role of followers' positive psychological capital and relational processes. Journal of organizational behavior, 35(1), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1850

Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., & Joseph, S. (2008). The authentic personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the Authenticity Scale. Journal of counseling psychology, 55(3), 385-399. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.385

Xiong, K., Lin, W., Li, J. C., & Wang, L. (2016). Employee trust in supervisors and affective commitment: The moderating role of authentic leadership. Psychological reports, 118(3), 829-848. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294116644370

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Authentic Leadership Education: An empirical discussion from Pakistani higher education

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction and background of the study

Materials and Methods

Results and Discussions

Conclusion and recommendations

Declarations

References

Status:

Version 1