The influence of leader vulnerability on employees’ perceptions of
leader’s effectiveness
The role of leader’s gender and employee loyalty
MSc Business Administration - Leadership and ManagementMaster Thesis
Name: Marieke van Liemt
Student number: 10293140
Version: Final Version
Supervisor: L. van Bunderen
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
This document is written by Marieke van Liemt who declares to take full
responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents...3
List of Figures and Tables...4
List of Appendix...4
Abstract...5
Introduction...6
Theoretical Framework...10
Leader Vulnerability...10
Leader Vulnerability and Employee Loyalty...13
Leader Vulnerability, Employee Loyalty and Perceived Leader Effectiveness....17
Leader Vulnerability, Employee Loyalty and Gender...19
Methods...23 Participants...23 Procedure...24 Measures...25 Results...26 Testing Hypotheses...26 Discussion...30 Theoretical Implications...31
Limitations and Future Directions...33
Managerial Implications...35
Conclusion...36
References...37
Appendix A...48
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1: Research Conceptual Model...23 Table 1: Means, Standard deviations, Bivariate Correlations and Cronbach’s
Alphas...28 Table 2: Results of Regression Analysis...29 Figure 2: Interactive effects of leader vulnerability and leader’s gender on perceived leader effectiveness...30
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Items...48 Appendix B: Translations of the Items...49
ABSTRACT
The power of vulnerability increasingly receives support. However, empirical research on the effects of leader vulnerability within the organizational context is largely lacking. This study examines the influence of displaying vulnerability by leaders on perceived leader effectiveness by their employees, in which the role of employee loyalty as mediator and leader’s gender as moderator are integrated. It proposes that leaders who express their weaknesses and vulnerabilities will be more likely to gain loyalty from their employees, which, in turn, leads to them being perceived as more effective. This effect will be stronger for female leaders than for male leaders. For this quantatitive study, data was gathered using a survey. Examining 136 leader-employee dyads, results show that leader vulnerability leads to perceived leader effectiveness. However, employee loyalty does not mediate this relationship. Interestingly, it appeared that vulnerability expressed by female leaders leads to employee loyalty and, in turn, perceptions of leader effectiveness. This does not apply to male leaders.
Keywords:
INTRODUCTION
‘the one area where I feel that I've been most frustrated and most stymied it is the fact that the United States of America is the one advanced nation on Earth in which we do not have sufficient common-sense, gun-safety laws. Even in the face of repeated mass killings‘ (BBC News, 2015).
In the quote above, Barack Obama publicly demonstrates one of his regrets during his presidency, in an interview with the BBC News (2015). It was notable that he acknowledged his failure.Moreover, this is not the only acknowledgement of the former president of the US about his doubts and uncertainties in his leadership role. In his last State of Union speech, Obama admitted that he regrets the increase of distrust and resentment between the parties, during his presidency (PBS NewsHour, 2016). Besides, Obama is also characterized as emotional and genuine during speeches and interviews.
This behavior displayed by Obama could be described as displaying vulnerability. Recently, scholars demonstrate increased interest for the topic of vulnerability within the organizational context (DeLong & DeLong, 2011; Brown, 2012; Ito & Bligh, 2016). Hitherto, research focused on how vulnerability can be originated in an
individual and the effects at the individual level. Another possible manner to look into the topic of vulnerability is what the effect is of expressing vulnerable behavior towards others, especially within interpersonal relationship at the workplace. The relationship between leader and employee is one of the most essential ones (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Yammarino, Dionne, Chun, & Dansereau, 2005; Martin, et al., 2016). Therefore, it is interesting to investigate the effects of leader vulnerability on
At first, displaying vulnerability by leaders was mainly seen by many as a great weakness (Lingenfelter & Mayers, 2003). Generally, leaders are characterized as confident, in-control, powerful and self-aware (Fry & Kriger 2009; Ekaterini 2010; Latham, 2013), so displaying vulnerability by a leader is not in line with stereotypical leader behavior. Recently, displaying vulnerability has both in the press as well as in Human Resource Management (HRM) literature, been increasingly perceived as positive and as having potential (Brown, 2006, 2012, 2015; Cabane, 2012; Rosenberg & Chopra, 2015). Brown (2012) argues that vulnerability is the origin of joy,
belonging, creativity, authenticity, and love. In case one dare to feel vulnerable, a sense of meaning and purpose to one’s life will be found. Furthermore, displaying vulnerability is assumed to engender interpersonal connections between leader and employee more deeply and at an emotional level (Ito & Bligh, 2016). Vulnerability also allows for learning possibilities and can enhance interpersonal trust. However, empirical evidence for the effects of leader vulnerability is largely lacking.
Based on the related literatures of trust and leader authenticity, I argue in this thesis that leader vulnerability is positively related to leader effectiveness through employee loyalty. Employee loyalty is defined as the public support expressed by the employee for the goals and the personal character of the leader (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). It involves a faithfulness to the individual that is generally consistent from situation to situation. The trust literature argues that leader vulnerability leads to trust between leaders and their employees (Lau & Liden, 2008; Dirks, 2000) and that trust, in turn, leads to employee loyalty. The authenticity literature will show that leader vulnerability could be accompanied and associated with authentic leadership (Shamir & Eilam, 2005; Luthans & Avolio, 2003; Walumbwa et al., 2008), and that authentic behavior leads to higher levels of employee loyalty. In turn, employee loyalty toward
the leader is an essential aspect concerning leader’s success and effectiveness (Chen, Tsui, & Farh, 2002).
Although the exact role of vulnerability within leadership is still unclear, research has shown, contrary to previous expectations, that men as well as women demonstrate vulnerable behavior in their leader role (Mohr& Wolfram, 2008). However, male and female leaders do not behave, act and lead in the same way and differ in terms of leadership behavior (Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003; Trinidad & Normore, 2005), which could have consequences for how expressed vulnerability will be experienced and perceived for male and female leaders. This indicates the importance of gender role within the topic of leader vulnerability. According to the role congruity theory of Eagly and Karau (2002), which focuses on the gender leader roles, it can be argued that employees are more loyal towards female leaders who display vulnerable behavior than male leaders. Besides, there also is some indication that male leaders displaying more typical female behavior got rewarded and were reviewed as more effective (Mohr& Wolfram, 2008;Embry, Padgett, & Caldwell, 2008). This thesis argues that both female as well as male
leaders expressing vulnerability have positive effects on employee loyalty and, in turn, on leader effectiveness, but that this will be stronger for female leaders.
Overall, the topic of leader vulnerability inquires attention. Individuals are more likely to be vulnerable and display vulnerable behaviors, especially in leading positions. Since labour standards became so high in organizational settings, the pressure and the performance expectations for individuals in the workplace increased (Flett & Hewitt, 2002; Shumaker & Rodebaugh, 2009). In such situations, in which performance standards are extremely high, people are more likely to experience
disclosure of vulnerable behavior. As already mentioned, the absence of empirical research on this topic deprives to do any pronouncement on the effects of displayed leader vulnerability. Therefore, it is important to investigate the consequences of displayed vulnerable behavior by the leader, in particular leader’s effectiveness. For management within organizations, it is necessary to understand the role of displayed leader vulnerability as antecedent of leader’s effectiveness, in order to create trainings for managers to enhance their performance.
Next to the importance of the application of the understanding of leader vulnerability in practice, the present study also intends to contribute to the HRM literature by attempting to foster the understanding of the role of leader vulnerability related to employee loyalty, and in turn, its effect on leader’s effectiveness. Future research could build on the found relationships of this study. Thereby, this study will expand on vulnerability literature by introducing a new construct which might explain the relationship between leader vulnerability and their effectiveness. In addition, gender of the leader will also be included within this paper by looking at its effect on the relationship between leader vulnerability and employee loyalty. This could provide deeper insight in the way male and female leaders should express their vulnerability in the organizational context. Firstly, the relationship between leader vulnerability and employee loyalty will be examined. Subsequently, the relationship between employee loyalty and employees‘ perceptions of leader’s effectiveness will be explained. Thereafter, it will be investigated whether and how leader’s gender moderate this relationship.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Leader Vulnerability
Little is known about the concept of leader vulnerability in the organizational context. Before discussing the literature, it is important to demarcate the form in which vulnerability will be addressed in this paper, because vulnerability is a dynamic concept. Vulnerability has, for example, an internal (beliefs) as well as an external side (vulnerable behavior) (Chambers, 2006) and Nienaber, Hofeditz and
Romeike (2015) built on this distinction between trusting beliefs (willingness to be vulnerable) and actual trusting behaviour (actual vulnerability) in order to structure the concept. Due to absence of scholars specifically focusing on leader vulnerability, an advanced definition will be formulated/handled. Herein, the focus will lie on vulnerability expressed or displayed by the leader towards their employees. This vulnerable behavior entails expressing one ‘s weaknesses, uncertainties, failures and imperfections, and expressing certain emotions in certain situations. Given the sparse research on leader vulnerability, exploration of several related concepts is needed to theorize the effects of leader vulnerability. First, the importance of trust literature within the concept of vulnerability will be described and explained. Subsequently, the overlap of leader vulnerability with authentic leadership will be discussed. Both of which will point us in the direction of employee loyalty thereafter. Next, it will be described why employee loyalty explains the relationship between leader
vulnerability and leader’s effectiveness.
Research shows that trust is perceived as one of the most important overlapping and interrelated concept with vulnerability (Lapidot, Kark, & Shamir, 2007; Burke, Sims, Lazzara, & Salas, 2007). Trust has been defined by Mayer, Davis, and
irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party‘. As seen, this definition shows that vulnerability could be described as an ingredient of trust. In addition, recently, a conceptual paper appeared which explored the role of leader vulnerability related to trust. Herein, Ito and Bligh (2016) argue that leader
vulnerability plays an important role in developing relationships between leaders and their followers. Employees can better relate with leaders when leader express their emotions. In turn, this provides safety and will lead to higher levels of employee trust towards the leader. According to the authors, leader vulnerability could therefore be a potential antecedent of building high quality and trusting leader-employee
relationships. However, hitherto there is no empirical evidence to support their reasoning.
In line with this view, scholars focusing on trust, have also emphasized that expressing vulnerability may be an antecedent of trust towards the leader, as vulnerability enhances the extent of trust in personal relations (Dirks, 2000; Lau & Liden, 2008; Gillespie & Mann, 2004). As expressing vulnerability can be
experienced as taking a risk and trust presumes a riskful situation (Luhmann, 1988), trust can be increased by expressing vulnerability. Vulnerability can be described as key manifestation of trust (Nienaber et al., 2015). In addition, Lapidot, Kart and Shamir (2007) were one of the few empirical scholars which built on the notion that vulnerability and trust are interrelated concepts, but distinct ones, in a way that vulnerability is an antecedent of trust (Dirks, 2000; Burke, Sims, Lazzara, & Salas, 2007; Lau & Liden, 2008). The authors included and focused on vulnerability in the dyadic relationship between leaders and their followers. The authors examined the impact of leaders‘ behaviors concerning the differences between situations in which the followers are highly vulnerable or less vulnerable as a result of the leader's actions.
The results have shown that vulnerability increases trust erosion instead of trust building between leader and employee. This suggests that the relationship between vulnerability and trust is complex. Importantly, this study addressed follower
vulnerability as a consequence of a leader’s actions and therefore leader vulnerability has not taken into account. Hence, trust seems to be important within the concept of leader vulnerability. Therefore, trust literature will be used to explain the relationship between leader vulnerability and employee loyalty.
Next to the importance of trust, as a related concept to leader vulnerability, some overlap can also be found in the area of authenticity of the leader. Literature defines authentic leaders as genuine, original and not fake (Shamir & Eilam, 2005). Within their role as leader they act as self-expressive and behave as their real self. Hence, authentic leaders stay true to themselves (Shamir & Eilam, 2005), which enable them to express vulnerable behavior towards their employees. According to Luthans and Avolio (2003), authenticity involves being self-aware and acting in accord with one's true self by expressing what one genuinely thinks and believes, unconstrained by traditional leadership role requirements (Henderson & Hoy, 1983). In line with this, Walumbwa et al. (2008) argue that authentic leader behavior fosters relational transparency between leaders and their followers, which includes displaying vulnerability. This indicates that authentic leaders might express vulnerability. However, displaying vulnerable behavior goes beyond acting authentic as a leader. Expressing vulnerability is about behaving as one’s true self and display one’s weaknesses but the aspect of risk taking is also present (Luhmann, 1988). Moreover, leader vulnerability entails showing weaknesses and uncertainties, whereas authentic leaders also display their values and beliefs (strengths), their real self. Despite of this
nuance, the impact and effect of leader vulnerability will also be explained through the authenticity literature.
To conclude, the concepts of trust and authenticity are strongly related to leader vulnerability. Vulnerability is seen as antecedent of trust and there is evidence that authentic leaders display vulnerable behavior. For this reason, literature on both of these topics will be used to explain the relationship between leader vulnerability and employee loyalty.
Leader Vulnerability and Employee Loyalty
Since the focus of this study will lie on the expressed vulnerability of the leader towards their employees, the relationship between the leader and their follower seems to play an important role. In addition, according to the trust literature focused on leadership in the organizational context, it appears that trust is essential for building high quality interpersonal relationships at the workplace (Scandura & Pellegrini, 2008; Lau & Liden, 2008; Ferrin, Dirks, & Shah, 2006; Brower, Schoorman, & Tan, 2000). As explained, literature on trust and on authenticity will be used to explain the relationship between leader vulnerability and the essential dimension of the
leader-employee relationship, employee loyalty (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), which in turn acts as mediator for the relationship between leader vulnerability and leaders’ effectiveness.
Employee loyalty can be seen as an action-oriented construct since it considers the behavior of the employee; which contains their commitment towards their leader, assumes personal responsibility and support for the leader (Eskildsen & Nussler, 2000;
Niehoff, Moorman, Blakely, & Fuller, 2001). Loyal employees show attachment and affection towards their leader, which is demonstrated through the intention to continue their work relation (Payne & Webber, 2006).Thereby, such employees spread
positive words about their leader and will defend the leader’s decisions (Niehoff et al., 2001). In addition, similar to the relevance of employees’ trust in their leader,
empirical research revealed the importance of employees’ loyalty (Chen, Tsui, & Farh, 2002). Loyalty goes one step beyond trust in one’s leader because it comprises
supportive behavior. Employees’ loyalty is a consequence of a leadership style that fosters employees’ identification with, and solidarity to the leader. It captures a deeper level of commitment by the employee (Payne & Webber, 2006).
To start with, Roberts (2005) argues that one may attempt to generate the favor of others through appeal of one’s weaknesses, which indicates that vulnerability might establish feelings of loyalty. Furthermore, overall, as we have seen from the trust literature, leader vulnerability is overlapping and associated, as antecedent, with employees‘ trust in the leader. Within this relationship, it appeared that expressed leader vulnerability leads to a better trusting leader-employee relationship (Dirks, 2000; Lau & Liden, 2008). To continue, employees’ trust in the leader is associated with a loyal relationship between leader and employee (Jung, Yammarino, & Lee, 2009). In line with this, several scholars indicate the existence of the positive association between trusting relationships and employee loyalty (Jose & Mampilly, 2012; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Moreover, research from Matzler and Renzl (2006) has shown that interpersonal trust between managers and their employees is a strong predictor of loyalty of the employee towards the manager. In addition, scholars focusing on trust have found positive workplace attitudes and behaviors, such as employee commitment, as consequence of trust (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Mooradian, Renzl, & Matzler, 2006). Since this kind of attitudes are associated with loyalty, this indicates that leader vulnerability, through trust, leads to employee loyalty.
Furthermore, trust in interpersonal relations has both cognitive and affective foundations (McAllister, 1995; Schaubroeck, Lam, & Peng, 2011). Cognitive-based trust depends on available knowledge and reasonableness of trust decision.
Affective-based trust consists of the emotional linkages between individuals.
Exploring the affective component of trust more in depth, provides extra support that employee loyalty acts as mechanism in the relationship between leader vulnerability and perceived leader effectiveness. According to Ito and Bligh (2016) disclosure of certain leader’s emotions in certain situations (expressed vulnerability) provides followers to relate with leaders at an emotional level, which may lead to higher levels of trust towards the leader. Nienaber, Hofeditz and Romeike (2015) also argue that expressing vulnerability often is accompanied and associated with emotions. Emotional expressions by leaders are essential factors to consider in the leadership process (Humphrey, Pollack, & Hawver, 2008; Michie & Gooty, 2005). Gardner, Fischer and Hunt (2009) state that emotional display by the leader has impact on both leaders and followers. Within their conceptual model, the authors propose that
emotional display by the leader has effect on the favorability of follower impression and, in turn, on the follower trust in the leader. Emotions are the manifestation of the affective dimension of trust in an interpersonal relationship between leader and follower (Chua, Ingram, & Morris, 2008; Schaubroeck, Lam, & Peng, 2011). According to both scholars, self-disclosure, rapport and empathy are essential elements explaining affect-based trust between leader and employee. When leaders express vulnerable behavior towards their employee, this will lead to higher levels of trust (affect), through emotions, in which empathy of the employee towards the leader explains this mechanism. Subsequently, it has been found that empathy and loyalty are strongly related (Chun, 2009). Therefore, it is reasonable that leader vulnerability
has positive influence on employee loyalty (affective component of the
leader-employee relationship). Altogether, leader vulnerability will have positive influence on employee loyalty, through interpersonal (affective) trust between leaders and their employees.
Also from the viewpoint of authenticity, leader vulnerability seems to influence the leader-follower relationship. As explained, authentic leaders tend to act and express themselves in a vulnerable manner. Therefore, the authenticity literature contributes to investigate the impact and effect of leader vulnerability on employee loyalty. In line with the trust literature, scholars on leader authenticity also agree on the relationship between authentic or vulnerable behavior and trust (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005; Clapp-Smith, Vogelgesang, & Avey, 2009; Hassan & Ahmed, 2011). Within this relationship, higher levels of authentic and vulnerable behavior leads to higher levels of trust between leader and employee. Authentic leaders foster enhanced levels of employees‘ self-awareness and self-regulation, which, in turn, lead to employees’ trust in the leader. Moreover, authentic leaders produce and create trust, which in turn have positive influence on the relationship with their followers (George & Sims, 2007). This results in
establishing transparent and rich relationships between leader and employee, in which leaders make use of clear and open communication, and display genuine interest in their employees (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). At a dyad level, authentic leadership can create a positive exchange relationship between leaders and their employees (Hsiung, 2012).
Building on these positive interpersonal relationships, employees who are working under an authentic leader, are more likely to expand their psychological
because they are more aware of their emotions. Also, authentic leaders are more likely to build open relationships with their employees than inauthentic leaders. Therefore, employees of authentic leaders receive higher levels of appreciation, recognition and feelings of achievement (Avolio et al., 2004). The authors also argue that authentic leaders are more willing to share information, express their internal feelings and thoughts, and endeavor to build transparent decision mechanisms. In turn, they can obtain more trust, loyalty, and identification from their employees (Avolio et al., 2004). In addition, Piccolo, Bardes, Mayer and Judge (2008) argue that authentic behavior by leaders should further enlarge their employees‘ loyalty, as consequence of displaying concern about their positive exchange relationship. In line with this, employees of who’s the leader shows genuine behavior, present higher levels of loyalty toward their leader, than those who did not show this behavior (Monzani, Ripoll, & Peiró, 2014).
To conclude, all these findings suggest that leader vulnerability is positively related to employee loyalty, because it has been found that authentic leaders display vulnerable behavior towards their employees. Thus, trust and authenticity literature indicate that leader vulnerability will lead to higher levels of employee loyalty. Therefore, the first hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 1: Leader vulnerability is positively related to employee loyalty. Leader Vulnerability, Employee Loyalty and Perceived Leader Effectiveness
Expressed vulnerability by the leader is likely to have a positive relationship with employee loyalty, and employee loyalty in return is likely to have a positive relationship with leader effectiveness. Employee loyalty is an essential dimension of the leader-employee relationship. High quality interactive relationships between leaders and their employees are characterized by employees express loyalty and
affective commitment towards their leader. Research on this has shown that those high quality relationships have positive influence on perceived leader effectiveness (Hassan, Mahsud, Yukl, & Prussia, 2013). This indicates that employee loyalty enhances employees’ perceptions of leader’s effectiveness.
Furthermore, research on integrity, which is found closely related to employee loyalty (Schindler & Thomas, 1993; Worden, 2003), has shown that it has impact on perceived effectiveness of the leader. Integrity entails behavior consistency and word-deed consistency, and can be defined as truthfulness and honest (Locke, 1991). By being consistent and predictable with their employees, leaders are more likely to gain trust(De Cremer, Van Dijke, & Bos, 2006). It is suggested that this, in turn, is related to leader effectiveness (McAllister, 1995; Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007; Gillespie & Mann, 2004). In addition, according to Hooijberg, Lane and Diversé (2010), integrity helps to increase perceptions of effectiveness of managers. Next to integrity, employee loyalty is also found to contain supportive behavior (Chen et al., 2002;Niehoff et al., 2001). Several studies have found evidence that support is positively related to leader effectiveness (Kim & Yukl, 1995; Amabile et al., 2004).
Furthermore, research which focuses on employee loyalty in particular, showed that employee loyalty towards their leader is an essential aspect with regard to leader’s effectiveness (Chen et al., 2002). More specifically, it is suggested that employee loyalty predicts performance in a positive manner and stronger than several related constructs. Moreover, in their research the authors used a loyalty measure referring to the following four dimensions: dedication, effort, following, and identification. It can be argued that identification is a subdimension of loyalty.
Identification with the leader in turn, has positive influence on the interaction between leader and employee and on the perceived effectiveness of the leader by the employee (Eagly, 2005). Thus, employee loyalty is related to leader effectiveness because loyal employees can better identify with the leader which in turn leads to leader
effectiveness perceptions. Hence, it is arguable that employee loyalty will lead to a higher level of leader effectiveness. Altogether, the findings indicate that employee loyalty has influence on leader’s effectiveness and therefore, that employee loyalty mediates the relationship between leader vulnerability and employees’ perceptions of leader’s effectiveness.
Hypothesis 2: Employee loyalty is positively related to perceived leader effectiveness. Hypothesis 3: The relationship between leader vulnerability and perceived leader effectiveness will be mediated by employee loyalty.
Leader Vulnerability, Employee Loyalty and Gender
Since women still face considerable barriers when attempting to reach leadership positions (Haslam & Ryan, 2008), mainly due to the stereotypes that still exist both about gender and leadership roles, the focus on gender seems essential in
the investigation of the effect of leader vulnerability. Lingenfelter and Mayers (2003) found that, according to self-reports, leader vulnerability is judged differently by men and women, in a way that especially male leaders experience vulnerable behavior as a weakness, which indicates gender differences within this topic. Eagly and Karau (2002) proposed a theory focused on gender differences within leadership named role congruity in leadership. Within this theory they explain how gender roles and leader roles create prejudices towards female leaders. Since expectations differ about the actual and ideal behavior of both women and men and the existence of inconsistencies of the female gender stereotype and the leadership role, women are seen as less
successful than men in leadership positions.The authors argue that characteristics which involve a concern with the welfare of others (helpful, interpersonally sensitive) are more strongly attributed to females. On the other hand, characteristics which involve an assertive, controlling and confident tendency are more strongly attributed to males. Male leadership is more characterized by strength, masculinity and tyranny (agentic leadership prototype dimensions) than female leadership (Johnson, Murphy, Zewdie, & Reichard, 2008; Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & Van Engen, 2003). On the other hand, sensitivity (communal leadership prototype dimensions; expressive, gentle, nurturing) is more central to female leadership than for male leaders. In general,
leadership prototypes are characterized by competitive, self-confident, powerful, in-control and aggressive (Johnson et al., 2008; Ekaterini 2010; Latham, 2013), and are more associated with male (leader) characteristics (Johnson et al., 2008; Eagly & Karau, 2002). Following the role congruity theory, women are therefore evaluated as less effective as a leader.
As displaying vulnerability is related to the communal dimensions, in particular because of the overlap with interpersonal sensitivity and expressive behavior, it is more congruent with the female leader role than the male leader role. For this reason, employees could have a higher level of appreciation for female leaders displaying vulnerability than for males. This, in turn, has positive influence on the interaction between leader and employee and might increase the level of loyalty of the employee towards the leader. In addition, meta-analytical results have shown that male leaders, and not female leaders, encounter role incongruity when showing female stereotype behavior (Davison & Burke, 2000), and then, are more likely to experience prejudicial reactions. Furthermore, from empirical research, it appeared that male leaders were
such as sadness, compared to neutral behavior (Lewis, 2000), also due to the gender role expectations. Thus, female leaders will receive support for showing vulnerability whereas male leaders will not be supported by their employees when displaying vulnerable behavior.
Moreover, as argued, leader vulnerability is more congruent with the communal leadership style. Thereby, women attach more value to reciprocal supportive
relationships (employees’ support of the leader and vice versa) with their colleagues than men (Collins, Burrus, & Meyer, 2014). Support also refers to the communal leadership style, which is more congruent with the female leader role (Johnson,
Murphy, Zewdie, & Reichard, 2008). Further, loyalty can be described as a communal aspect because it indicates reciprocal support (Collins, Burrus, & Meyer, 2014). Since all constructs are more related to the communal style, which is harmonized with the female leader style, vulnerability expressed by a female leader is expected to be more positively related to employee loyalty, compared to vulnerability expressed by male leaders. In addition, Yukl (2006) suggested that female leaders might be in favor in managing and uncover interactive social relations, compared to male leaders, because they are more suited to support roles. In turn, it is more likely for female leaders to foster affective relations with their employees and greater cohesion. Since loyalty can be seen as a subdimension of the construct cohesion (Bollen & Hoyle, 1990), it is arguable that expressed behavior of female leaders is more positively related to employee loyalty, compared to male leaders. All above mentioned findings together, the effect of vulnerability expressed by the leader, can be expected to be more beneficial for female leaders, especially in relation to employee loyalty.
However, other scholars found unexpected effects of leaders‘ gender. Research of Mohr and Wolfram (2008) has shown that male leaders who display verbal
consideration (more communal and therefore feminine behavior), receive less
irritation, reported by their followers. Whereas, no effect was found for female leaders displaying verbal consideration. This indicates that when male leaders display
vulnerable behavior, follower‘s perception of their effectiveness are higher than those for female leaders. Moreover, it appeared that male leaders employing a more
feminine leadership style, and therefore gender-inconsistent, receive a more positively evaluation by their followers, compared to male leaders employing a
gender-consistent leadership style (Embry, Padgett, & Caldwell, 2008). This finding provides additional substantiation for the perspective which says that the female gender role and leadership role are not conflicting, regarding displaying vulnerability by the leader. According to aforementioned findings, it even seems that male leaders receive rewards from their followers for showing vulnerable behaviors. Therefore, their followers will be more loyal to male leaders displaying vulnerable behavior than female leaders.
Concerning both of the above mentioned perspectives on leader’s gender, it seems that there is a difference in the relationship between leader vulnerability and employee loyalty, for female and male leaders. Although both of these perspectives come up with sufficient and plausible arguments, employees will be more loyal towards female leaders who express vulnerability than male leaders, because
displaying vulnerable behavior naturally better relates to the feminine stereotype. Men are characterized by strength and masculinity which is in conflict with expressing vulnerability. For men, the difference in expected behavior is larger when they position themselves as vulnerable. Thereby, unexpected behavior might be less accepted (unconsciously). Thus, both men as well as women in a leading position
showing vulnerability have positive effects on employee loyalty but this will be stronger for women. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed.
Hypothesis 4: There is an interaction effect between leader vulnerability and leader’s gender on employee loyalty, such that leader vulnerability is more positively related to employee loyalty when expressed by a female leader than by a male leader.
Hypothesis 5: There is a moderated mediation effect of leader vulnerability and the leader’s gender on perceived leader effectiveness through employee loyalty.
FIGURE 1. Research Conceptual Model
METHODS
In the next section, the empirical part of this research will be presented. First, the sample of this study will be described. Subsequently, the procedure for collecting the data and the measures used for operationalization of the constructs will be
explained in detail. Participants
The total sample for this study consisted of 272 participants (136
leader-employee dyads). The leader sample consisted of participants ranging from 22 to 69 years in age (M = 43.40, SD = 11.56). 51% was female, and 49% male, and 79% had a higher level of education (HBO or university). The leaders had spent from 2
age of the employee sample ranged from 18 to 66 years (M = 34.42, SD= 12.17). 60% was female, and 70 % had completed higher education. The number of years spent in the current position ranged from only 2 months up to over 40 years (M = 66.26, SD = 83.18). Finally, the amount of time that the leader and follower had spent working together ranged from two months to over 25 years (M = 34.77, SD = 48.09; in months) and the largest represented sector was the health sector (20%).
Procedure
The data for this correlational study was gathered by five students under supervision of one supervisor, using an online survey made with Qualtrics. During a period of four weeks, two different online surveys were distributed: one for
supervisors and one for employees, as this is a dyadic study. The participants had to fill in the statements applying to either their leader or their employee. In order to link the surveys of a certain supervisor and his or her employee, a unique matching code was provided. Participation within this study was completely voluntary and
anonymously. As the population of this study entails leaders and employees in different organizations located in the Netherlands, all items for all constructs were translated into Dutch and the surveys were administered in Dutch. To ensure the quality, the students checked all the other translations by means of the translation back-translation procedure.
Due to the limited time available for data collection, the convenience sampling technique was used in this study in approaching both the leaders and employees. The participants were mainly selected from the network of the five students and were attained by contacting them personally and through Facebook. First, an initial request was sent to ask if both the leader and corresponding employee would be willing to
matching code and the survey link) was sent to the leader and employee, willing to participate. The response rate was 85 percent, and 7,4 percent of the
respondents/dyads only filled in one of the two surveys. This response rate is far above average, because previous research on leader-employee dyads in organizations showed variation in response rate, from 49 percent (Kalshoven, Den Hartog, & de Hoogh, 2013) to 92 percent (Zhang, Wang, & Shi, 2012).
Measures
The survey items utilized a 1-7 Likert scale, with 7 indicating high agreement. The items of leader vulnerability and perceived leader effectiveness were rated by the employees. The scale of employee loyalty was rated by the leaders.
Leader vulnerability. For measuring the scale of leader vulnerability of van
Bunderen (2018), seven items were included. An example of an employee rated item is: ’My supervisor is open about his/her uncertainties’. The leader vulnerability scale was proved to be reliable, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .88 , and therefore the answers were averaged into one score.
Employee loyalty. The scale of employee loyalty was measured through three
items developed by Liden and Maslyn (1998) (e.g. ‘My employee defends my work actions towards others, even without complete knowledge of the issue in
question‘ and ‘My employee would come to my defense if I were "attacked" by others’). The three items of Liden and Maslyn needed to be converted from employee rated items to leader rated items. The internal consistency reliability for employee loyalty was sufficient, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .72.
Perceived leader effectiveness. For measuring the scale of perceived leader
effectiveness of Van Knippenberg and Van Knippenberg (2005), seven items were included in the online survey. An example of an item of the perceived leader
effectiveness scale is: ‘My leader/manager leads in a way that I enjoy working with him/her’. Perceived leader effectiveness had a Cronbach’s alpha of .94.
Control variables. The participants were asked to fill in some demographics such
as their gender, age, tenure and educational background (control variables) when starting the online survey in Qualtrics, in order to rule out potentially specious relations in further analyses. The amount of time that the leader and employee had spent working together, and in what kind of industry, were also taken into account.
RESULTS
In this section, the results of the data analysis will be presented. First, the descriptive statistics will be discussed, based on the correlation matrix. Next, the hypotheses will be tested using linear regression analysis. The proposed hypotheses will be tested in chronological order. Means, standard deviations, bivariate
correlations, and Cronbach’s alphas for the variables used in this study are presented in Table 1. The hypotheses will be tested by means of hierarchical regression analysis, see Table 2. The independent variable leader vulnerability was centered before
creating the interaction term. Testing Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1 predicted that the relationship between leader vulnerability and employee loyalty will be positive. This hypothesis was not supported (β = .02, t = .22, p = .83, Adj. R2= -.02). Leader vulnerability was not related to employee loyalty. Hypothesis 2 proposed that employee loyalty is positively related to perceived leader effectiveness. This hypothesis was supported (β = .24, t = 2.81, p < 01, Adj. R2= .03). Employee loyalty was positively related to perceived leader effectiveness.
significant relationship between leader vulnerability and employee loyalty is found, this hypothesis will be tested by means of the PROCESS macro (Model 4) by Hayes (2012) with 5000 repetitions. No indirect effect of leader vulnerability and perceived leader effectiveness via employee loyalty is found (b = .00; Bias and accelerated 95% CI: -0.04, 0.05). However, there is evidence for the direct effect of leader
vulnerability on perceived leader effectiveness (b = .17, p = .03).
Hypothesis 4 proposed that there would be an interaction effect between leader vulnerability and leader’s gender on employee loyalty, such that leader vulnerability is more positively related to employee loyalty when expressed by a female leader than by a male leader. Results show that leader’s gender moderate the relationship between leader vulnerability and perceived leader effectiveness, as there was a significant interaction effect of leader vulnerability and leader’s gender on perceived leader effectiveness (β = .38, t = 3.13, p < .01, Adj. R2= .04). The simple slopes of this interaction were investigated, by means of the procedure of Aiken and West (1991). Leader vulnerability was positively related to employee loyalty when expressed by female leaders (β = .26, t = 2.47, p = .02), and leader vulnerability was not related to employee loyalty when expressed by male leaders (β = -.19, t = -1.97, p = .051, see Figure 2).
Hypothesis 5 predicted a moderated mediation model, such that leader
vulnerability is positively related to perceived leader effectiveness through employee loyalty. It is expected that this relationship is more positive when vulnerability is expressed by a female leader than by a male leader. In order to test this hypothesis, the PROCESS macro (Model 7) of Hayes (2012) for a moderated mediation model is conducted with 5000 repetitions. A positive relationship is found between leader vulnerability and leader effectiveness through employee loyalty only for female
TABLE 1. Means, Standard deviations, Bivariate Correlations and Cronbach’s Alphas
Note. N = 136. Gender (both for leader and employee) was coded as (0) = male, (1) = female. * Correlation is significant at the level of p < .05, ** Correlation is significant at the level of p < .01 (2-tailed).
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Age leader 43.40 11.56 -2. Age employee 34.42 12.17 .39** -3. Gender leader .51 .50 -.21* -.14 -4. Gender employee .60 .49 -.08 -.21* .28** -5. Education leader 5.90 1.08 .10 .21* -.03 -.11 -6. Education employee 5.82 1.14 .14 .03 -.16 -.03 .20* -7. Industry 4.87 2.97 .01 -.05 -.29** -.19* -.01 .01 -8. Leader vulnerability 4.67 1.11 -.03 .07 .02 .00 .01 .26** -.10 -9. Employee loyalty 5.18 .89 -.09 -.01 .08 .10 -.05 -.06 -.11 .02 -10. Leader effectiveness 5.46 1.01 -.07 -.03 .08 .06 .05 -.05 -.13 .18* .26**
leaders (b = .07; Bias and accelerated 95% CI: 0.01, 0.15), and not for male leaders (b = -.05; Bias and accelerated 95% CI: - 0.15, 0.01).
TABLE 2. Results of Regression Analysis
Note. N=136. Standardized beta coefficients are presented. *p < .05, **p < .01 Employee loyalty Leader effectiveness
Variable Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
Controls Age leader -.09 -.09 -.07 -.06 -.04 -.04 -.02 Age employee .04 .04 .02 -.02 -.04 -.04 -.05 Gender employee .08 .08 .08 .03 .03 .03 .01 Education leader -.03 -.03 -.08 .07 .08 .07 .09 Education employee -.04 -.04 -.07 -.05 -.10 -.10 -.09 Industry -.09 -.09 -.04 -.12 -.10 -.10 -.09 Leader vulnerability .02 -.23 .19* .17 .23 Gender leader .01 .02 .01 .01 .01
Leader vulnerability x Gender leader .38** .03 -.06
Employee loyalty .25** R2 .03 .03 .10 .03 .06 .06 .12 Adjusted R2 -.01 -.03 .03 -.02 .00 -.01 .05 Change in R2 .03 .00 .07 .03 .03 .00 .06 Overall F .69 .52 1.58 .61 1.04 .92 1.67 df 6,129 8,127 9,126 6,129 8,127 9,126 10,125
FIGURE 2. Interactive effects of leader vulnerability and leader’s gender on perceived leader effectiveness
DISCUSSION
The topic of vulnerability in the organizational context and its power increasingly receive attention and support (Moussavi-Bock, 2011; Brown, 2012). Although literature on related constructs, such as trust and authenticity, suggest positive consequences, empirical research on the effects of leader vulnerability is scarce. This study provides insights of the influence of displaying vulnerability by leaders on the leader’s perceived effectiveness by their employee, investigated the role of employee loyalty as mechanism within this relationship (Liden & Maslyn, 1998; Chen et al., 2002) and extended this by exploring the role of leader’s gender (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Davison & Burke, 2000; Mohr & Wolfram, 2008), proposing that leader vulnerability is positively related to leader effectiveness but different for female and male leaders. In contrast with expectations, it has been found that
between leader vulnerability and leader effectiveness. Interestingly, when leader’s gender is taken into account, it appeared that vulnerability expressed by female leaders leads to perceptions of leader effectiveness via employee loyalty and that this does not apply to male leaders. Rather a negative relationship is found for men, than a positive one, but just not significant. With the found outcomes of this study, several theoretical contributions can be made for the organizational context.
Theoretical Implications
Firstly, previous research on leader vulnerability focused mainly on conceptualization of the concept. Hitherto, empirical research on the effects of displayed leader vulnerability on their employees was lacking. This study contributes to the literature on leader vulnerability by offering a first empirical account, in which the impact of expressed vulnerability by the leader on the perceptions of employees of their leader’s effectiveness is examined, so in dyadic relationships. In line with
expectations, it appeared that when leaders express vulnerable behavior this will lead to higher levels of perceived effectiveness of the leader by employees, which
amplifies the notion of the potential and advantages of expressed vulnerability.
Following Brown (2012), leader vulnerability indeed can be entitled as powerful. This study provides empirical evidence that non-prototypical or unexpected behavior is not always a bad thing within interpersonal relationships, which contradicts some other research (Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003; Rast III, Gaffney, Hogg, & Crisp, 2012). Acting in a vulnerable manner towards one’s subordinates will be rewarded.
Furthermore, this study argued that leader vulnerability leads to leader’s
effectiveness via loyalty of the employees towards the leader. While it was expected that level of loyalty of the employee towards the leader would be acting as explaining mechanism for the influence of leader vulnerability on leader effectiveness, no
evidence was found for this. As employee loyalty does not mediate this relationship, probably another factor could explain why leader vulnerability leads to perceived effectiveness. The substantiation for the relationship between leader vulnerability and employee loyalty mainly focused on the affective aspect of interpersonal relationships in organizations (Schaubroeck, Lam, & Peng, 2011; Chun, 2009). As argued, the connection and overlap between leader vulnerability and emotions was expected to explain the link between vulnerability and employee loyalty via affective-based trust. Perhaps, the cognitive aspect is more grounded and important when it comes to leader vulnerability and its effects, than expected (Cha & Edmondson, 2006).
Next, this study confirms, once again, that gender plays a large and important role within leadership behavior, which allows to augment to the already extensive
literature concerning leadership and gender (Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Vecchio, 2002; Scott & Brown, 2006). It appeared that whether expressed vulnerability by the leader influences employee loyalty and in turn leader effectiveness, depends on the gender of the leader. Employees of female leaders displaying vulnerable behavior, are more loyal towards their leader and perceive their leader as more effective. In contrast to expectations, this does not apply to male leaders. For female leader, displaying vulnerability seems beneficial for their perceived effectiveness. This completely provides confirmation for and strengthens the role congruity theory of Eagly and Karau (2002), which is an extension of Eagly’s social role theory of gender
similarities and differences. According to this theory, male characteristics are more congruent with the leadership prototypes than females. Thereby, feminine
characteristics and the female leader role (sensitive and expressive) are more congruent with and related to displaying vulnerability. Outcomes of this study
2008; Embry, Padgett, & Caldwell, 2008), male leaders will not be rewarded for showing their weaknesses and vulnerabilities. As seen, for the direct influence of vulnerability on effectiveness non-prototypical behavior seems beneficial. However, when taking loyalty into account, this study also shows that this is not the case for men, which indicates that it is expected that men behave like men.
Limitations and Future Directions
Despite of the contributions and strengths of this study, it also has several
limitations. The first limitation relates to the collected leader-employee dyads for this study. The dyads were composed by the participants themselves. Either the leader or the employee was asked to participate within this study. Subsequently, they had to approach their dyad partner themselves. This could have resulted in that the composition of the leader-employee dyads was based on preference for the chosen person. Therefore, it is plausible that the leader and the employee have a high quality, good relationship. This, in turn, could have influence on how they answered the questions of the survey. The statements were mostly about their relationship at the workplace, so this could have led to many positive responses, which results in distorted outcomes. So, in future research it would be valuable, as researcher, to approach organizations and compose the dyads randomly in order to exclude this effect.
Furthermore, the data for this correlational study was gathered through
convenience sampling. Although this was time-efficient and resulted in a sufficient sample size, the technique lacks randomization and reduces generalizability of the data. This makes it hard to draw conclusions on the population. Moreover, because of the cross-sectional nature of the design, the environment can not be controlled for, which makes it impossible to rule out third variable issues. Therefore, the research
design and technique used in order to collect data deny to draw causal conclusions. In contrast to what is argued in this study, that vulnerability leads to employee loyalty (for female leader), it could also be argued that employee loyalty causes leader vulnerability. No statements can be made about the direction of the relationship. Despite the existing knowledge and evidence about the relationship between vulnerability and trust, in which trust acts as consequence of vulnerability, and the link between trust and employee loyalty, which provides plausible reasons for that leader vulnerability provokes loyalty, future research should further investigate the direction of this relationship by means of longitudinal and experimental research designs.
In line with previous limitation, the survey was only administered in Dutch, because the population of this study entailed leaders and employees in the Dutch workforce. For this reason, statements about the effect of leader vulnerability in organizational context, based on the results, only can be made concerning the Netherlands. Culture and standards are conceivable to have influence on the acceptance of showing one’s vulnerable side as a leader, so it will be enriching to further investigate whether the impact of vulnerability in other countries is similar or different to the Netherlands. In addition, taking industry into account, one could argue that strict hierarchical, masculine organizational cultures are less inclined to accept vulnerability than, for example, in healthcare. Within this study, the distribution of the industries in which the participants were active, was not proportional. Thereby, some sectors were not represented at all, which could have distorted and influenced the outcomes.
important within the topic of leader vulnerability, but as suggestion for future research it would also be interesting to investigate the impact on team outcomes or
performance. For example, within teams, psychological safety seems to play an important role for positive outcomes (Bradley et al., 2012; Frazier et al., 2017). Since psychological safety can be related to leader vulnerability (Edmondson, Kramer, & Cook, 2004; Roussin, 2008), this could give direction for research on the impact of leader vulnerability on team outcomes.
Managerial Implications
As results of this study show, displaying one’s weaknesses and vulnerable sides as a leader does not harm their effectiveness. Within the organizational context, leaders and managers currently work under pressure because high performance standards are set. In certain situations, leaders or managers could lose some strength and power, which is not consistent with the leadership role. However, when leaders acknowledge and express their failures, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities, instead of strengths and confidence, it is not harmful for their reputation but rather likely to be accepted, and even appreciated. Leaders expressing vulnerable behavior towards their employees are perceived as effective. Thus, this leadership behavior leads to positive outcomes, also for organizations. Therefore, management could provide training or information sessions for leaders within the organization about the potential of showing their weaknesses, human sides. This can strengthen their position and reputation and has positive organizational outcomes. By making them aware of the advantages, leaders can use that knowledge to shape their leadership behavior in order to perform better. So, it is important for organizations to focus on and give attention to the topic of vulnerability in manager functions.
In addition, hereby it is essential to recognize the differences between female and male leaders. Management should emphasize that female leaders benefit from showing their vulnerabilities because they will receive support from their employees when doing so. Therefore, females should be encouraged to express themselves in a vulnerable way in order to achieve positive interpersonal relationships with
employees and obtain supportive behavior from employees. Additionally,
organizations should provide opportunities for women in leading positions. Behavior and characteristics which made them perceived as weak, appeared to be beneficial for their effectiveness. Contrastingly, in order to establish supportive relationships, men should be reticent with showing vulnerabilities within the leading position.
Conclusion
This study shows that leader vulnerability is beneficial for the perceptions of their effectiveness by their employees. Leaders who show their weaknesses and their vulnerable side are being perceived as effective leaders. However, this is not
explained through the loyalty of employees towards the leader. Display of vulnerable behavior by the leader does not lead to more loyal employees. Interestingly, when gender of the leader is taken into account, it has been proven that vulnerability
expressed by female leaders predicts loyalty among employees, which is not found for male leaders. So, whether leader vulnerability leads to loyal employees, and in turn, to perceived leader effectiveness, depends on leader’s gender. To conclude, the findings of this study provide first insights into the effect and impact of leader vulnerability within the interpersonal relationship between leaders and employees, and that the role of leader’s gender is important in order to gain loyal employees.
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 5–32.
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. 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 behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801 – 823.
BBC News. (2015, July 23). President Barack Obama (FULL) Interview - BBC News [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdU7fUXDLpI Bollen, K. A., & Hoyle, R. H. (1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and
empirical examination. Social forces, 69(2), 479-504.
Bradley, B. H., Postlethwaite, B. E., Klotz, A. C., Hamdani, M. R., & Brown, K. G. (2012). Reaping the benefits of task conflict in teams: The critical role of team psychological safety climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 151. Brower, H., Schoorman, F. D., & Tan, H. (2000). A model of leadership: The
integration of trust and leader-member exchange. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 227–250.
Brown, C. B. (2006). Shame resilience theory: A grounded theory study on women and shame. Families in society: The journal of contemporary social
services, 87(1), 43-52.
Brown, C. B. (2015). Rising strong: The reckoning. The rumble. The revolution. New York, NY: Spiegel & Grau.
Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and integration. The leadership quarterly, 18(6), 606-632. Cabane, O. F. (2012). The charisma myth: How anyone can master the
art and science of personal magnetism. New York, NY: Portfolio/Penguin.
Cha, S. E., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). When values backfire: Leadership,
attribution, and disenchantment in a values-driven organization. The Leadership
Quarterly, 17(1), 57-78.
Chambers, R. (2006). Vulnerability, coping and policy (editorial introduction). IDS bulletin, 37(4), 33-40.
Chen, Z. X., Tsui, A. S., & Farh, J.-L. (2002). Loyalty to supervisor vs. organizational commitment: Relationships to employee performance in China. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 339–356. doi:10.1348/096317902320369749
Chua, R. Y. J., Ingram, P., & Morris, M. W. (2008). From the head and the heart: Locating cognition-and affect-based trust in managers' professional
networks. Academy of Management journal, 51(3), 436-452.
Chun, R. (2009). A corporate's responsibility to employees during a merger: organizational virtue and employee loyalty. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 9(4), 473-483.
Clapp-Smith, R., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Avey, J. B. (2009). Authentic leadership and positive psychological capital: The mediating role of trust at the group level of analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(3), 227-240.
of leadership styles on subordinate embeddedness and job satisfaction. The leadership quarterly, 25(4), 660-671.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of management, 31(6), 874-900.
Davison, H. K., & Burke, M. J. (2000). Sex discrimination in simulated employment contexts: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 225-248.
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.
DeLong, T. J., & DeLong, S. (2011) The Paradox of Excellence. Harvard Business Review, 89, 119-123, 139.
Dirks, K. T. (2000). Trust in leadership and team performance: Evidence from NCAA basketball. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 1004-1012.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in Leadership: Meta-Analytic Findings and Implications for Research and Practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611-628.
Eagly, A. H. (2005). Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter? The Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 459-474.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.007
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Van Engen, M. L. (2003). ‘Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: a meta-analysis comparing women and men’. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569–591.
Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233–256.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573-598.
Edmondson, A. C., Kramer, R. M., & Cook, K. S. (2004). Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-level lens. Trust and distrust in
organizations: Dilemmas and approaches, 12, 239-272.
Ekaterini, G. (2010). The impact of leadership styles on four variables of executives workforce. International Journal of Business & Management, 5(6), 14.
Embry, A., Padgett, M. Y., & Caldwell, C. B. (2008). Can leaders step outside of the gender box? An examination of leadership and gender role stereotypes. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(1), 30-45.
Eskildsen, J. K., & Nussler, M. L. (2000). The managerial drivers of employee satisfaction and loyalty. Total Quality Management, 11(4-6), 581-588. Ferrin, D. L., Dirks, K. T., & Shah, P. P. (2006). Direct and indirect effects of
third-party relationships on interpersonal trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 870-883.
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002). Perfectionism and maladjustment: An overview of theoretical, definitional, and treatment issues.
Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta‐analytic review and extension. Personnel
Psychology, 70(1), 113-165.
Fry, L., & Kriger, M. (2009). Towards a theory of being-centered leadership: Multiple levels of being as context for effective leadership. Human Relations, 11(30), 62. Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). “Can
development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 343-372.
Gardner, W. L., Fischer, D., & Hunt, J. G. J. (2009). Emotional labor and leadership: A threat to authenticity?. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 466-482.
George, W., & Sims, P. (2007). True north: Discover your authentic leadership. Jossey-Bass, San-Francisco.
Gillespie, N. A., & Mann, L. (2004). Transformational leadership and shared values: the building blocks of trust. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 588−607. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership:
Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The leadership quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.
Haslam, S. A., & Ryan, M. K. (2008). The road to the glass cliff: Differences in the perceived suitability of men and women for leadership positions in succeeding and failing organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5), 530-546.
Hassan, A., & Ahmed, F. (2011). Authentic leadership, trust and work
engagement. International journal of human and social sciences, 6(3), 164-170. Hassan, S., Mahsud, R., Yukl, G., & Prussia, G. E. (2013). Ethical and empowering
leadership and leader effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(2), 133-146.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling.
Henderson, J. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1983). Leader authenticity; The development and test of an operational measure. Educational and Psychological Research, 3(2), 63-75.
Wishful thinking?. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 18(1), 59-75.
Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., & Hawver, T. (2008). Leading with emotional labor. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 151-168.
Hsiung, H. H. (2012). Authentic leadership and employee voice behavior: A multi-level psychological process. Journal of business ethics, 107(3), 349-361. Ito, A., & Bligh, M. C. (2016). Feeling Vulnerable? Disclosure of Vulnerability in the
Charismatic Leadership Relationship. Journal of Leadership Studies, 10, 66–70. doi:10.1002/jls.21492
Johnson, S. K., Murphy, S. E., Zewdie, S., & Reichard, R. J. (2008). The strong, sensitive type: Effects of gender stereotypes and leadership prototypes on the evaluation of male and female leaders. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106, 39–60.
Jose, G., & Mampilly, S. R. (2012). Satisfaction with HR practices and employee engagement: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 4(7), 423-430.
Jung, D. I., Yammarino, F. J., & Lee, J. K. (2009). Moderating role of subordinates’ attitudes on transformational leadership and effectiveness: A multi-cultural and multi-level perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 586–603.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.04.011
Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & de Hoogh, A. H. (2013). Ethical leadership and followers' helping and initiative: The role of demonstrated responsibility and job autonomy. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(2), 165-181.
leadership behaviors to managerial effectiveness and advancement. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 361–377.
Lapidot, Y., Kark, R., & Shamir, B. (2007). The impact of situational vulnerability on the development and erosion of followers’ trust in their leader. Leadership
Quarterly, 18, 16-34. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.11.004
Latham, J. R. (2013). A framework for leading the transformation to performance excellence part II: CEO perspectives on leadership behaviors, individual leader characteristics, and organizational culture. Quality Management Journal, 20(3), 22.
Lau, D. C., & Liden, R. C. (2008). Antecedents of coworker trust: Leaders' blessings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1130-1138.
Lewis, K. M. (2000). When leaders display emotion: How followers respond to negative emotional expression of male and female leaders. Journal of organizational behavior, 221-234.
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionafity of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of management, 24(1), 43-72.
Lingenfelter, S., & Mayers, M. (2003). Ministering cross-culturally (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.
Locke, E. A. (1991). The essence of leadership: The four keys to leading successfully. New York : Lexington Books.
Luhmann, N. (1988), “Familiarity, confidence, trust: Problems and alternatives”, in Gambetta, D. G. (Ed.), Trust; Basil Blackwell, New York, NY, pp. 94-107. Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership: A positive development
scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 241-261). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel psychology, 60(3), 541-572.
Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., Thomas, G., Lee, A., & Epitropaki, O. (2016). Leader–member exchange (LMX) and performance: A meta‐analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 67-121.
Matzler, K., & Renzl, B. (2006). The relationship between interpersonal trust, employee satisfaction, and employee loyalty. Total quality management and business excellence, 17(10), 1261-1271.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of management review, 20(3), 709-734. McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for
interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of management journal, 38(1), 24-59.
Michie, S., & Gooty, J. (2005). Values, emotions, and authenticity: Will the real leader please stand up?. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 441-457.
Mohr, G., & Wolfram, H. J. (2008). Leadership and effectiveness in the context of gender: The role of leaders' verbal behaviour. British Journal of
Management, 19(1), 4-16.
Monzani, L., Ripoll, P., & Peiró, J. M. (2014). Followers’ agreeableness and extraversion and their loyalty towards authentic leadership. Psicothema, 26(1), 69-75.
