AUTHENTICITY IN LEADERSHIP
EXAMINING THE INFLUENCE OF AUTHENTICITY ON LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS THROUGH A QUALITATIVE CASE STUDY METHOD- Master thesis -
August 2008
MAARTEN SPEKSCHATE Student number: 1497057
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business. Master of Science in Business Administration,
specialization Change Management.
Supervisor: T.E.P. Lotgerink Co-assessor: B.J.M. Emans
Supervisor at HSH Advies: E.J. Hidskes
Lodewijkstraat 49 9724 BG Groningen +31 (0)6 1491 2328 spekschate@hotmail.com
‘LEADERSHIP IS MUCH MORE AN ART, A BELIEF, A CONDITION OF THE
HEART, THAN A SET OF THINGS TO DO.’
ABSTRACT
In literature, interest is growing in the relatively new theory of authentic leadership. In essence, it refers to leadership in which leaders are deeply aware of their beliefs, values, positive capacities, moral perspectives, knowledge and strengths, and their leadership context. Leaders are proposed to incorporate this awareness in their functioning, through processes of self-regulation.
This research tests and further develops main constructs of authentic leadership theory, by means of a specific qualitative case study-method, aiming to assess whether authenticity in leadership increases leadership effectiveness. Results indicate that leader self-awareness, leader self-regulation and the incorporation of context in leadership are essential means for increasing leadership effectiveness, and are strongly interdependent. Moreover, the benefits of self-awareness can be improved by increasing the awareness of personal weaknesses and behavioural effects. Self-regulation should include continuous reflection on a leader’s functioning by others, and by the self, for increasing self-awareness. Furthermore, a positive psychological capital and a positive moral perspective potentially add to leadership effectiveness, but are mere moderators. Indications are found that they can negatively influence effectiveness as well. Leading by example through authenticity, is proved helpful and possible, but does not increase leadership effectiveness by definition. Last, the research indicates that the examined constructs are suitable for improvement and development, which implies that leadership effectiveness is developable as well.
TABLE OF CONTENT
1 - INTRODUCTION ... 5 2 - THEORETICAL BACKGROUND... 7 2.1 Authenticity ... 7 2.2 Leadership ... 7 2.2 Leadership effectivenessh ... 7 2.3 Authentic leadership ... 82.4 Constructs of authentic leadership... 8
2.5 Research sub-questions ...12
3 - METHOD ...13
4 – DATA ANALYSIS ...16
4.1 Within-case analysis ...16
4.2 Cross-case analysis ...21
5 – REFINING THE TESTED CONSTRUCTS...25
6 – ADDITIONAL LITERATURE RESEARCH...28
6.1 Leader self-awareness ...28
6.2 Leader self-regulation...29
6.3 Leadership context ...30
6.4 Positive psychological capital ...31
6.5 Positive moral perspective ...32
6.6 Influence processes...32 7 - DISCUSSION...35 7.1 Conclusions ...35 7.2 Implications...36 7.3 Limitations...38 REFERENCES...40
1 - INTRODUCTION
Authenticity in leadership is a relatively new subject in the field of leadership development in which interest is growing in both practitioner and academic literature (Avolio et al., 2004; Avolio & Gardner, 2005). It is described as a new construct in response to a decrease in ethical leadership (e.g., Worldcom, Enron, Martha Stewart, World Online, Ahold). Coupled with an increase in societal challenges (e.g., September 11 terrorism, fluctuating stock values, a downturn in the U.S. and global economy), this necessitates the need for positive, authentic leadership (Cooper et al., 2005). Authentic leadership represents an effort to distil the essence of all positive approaches to leadership, resulting in which is regarded a root concept of positive approaches to leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Moreover, it is argued that existing frameworks of leadership development are not sufficient for developing leaders of the future (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Avolio et al., 2004; Gardner et al., 2005; Luthans & Avolio, 2003; May et al., 2003).
In essence, authentic leadership refers to a leadership approach in which leaders are deeply aware of how they think and behave, aware of their and other’s values, moral perspectives, knowledge and strengths, and aware of the context in which they function.
As May et al. (2003) describe it, the idea that leadership is a social influence process occurring between leaders and employees is generally accepted. Yet, they claim, it is ultimately about the leader knowing him- or herself and being transparent in linking inner desires, expectations, and values to the way the leader behaves every day, in each and every interaction. Authentic leaders are perceived to be of high moral character (Avolio and Gardner, 2005). Authentic leadership, according to Luthans and Avolio (2003), is defined a process that draws from both positive psychological capacities and a highly developed organizational context. This will result in greater self-awareness and self-regulated positive behaviours of leaders and associates, which fosters positive self-development.
Hence, authentic leadership is believed to be able to make a fundamental difference in organizations by helping people find meaning and connection at work (Avolio and Gardner, 2005). Ilies et al. (2005), similar to May et al. (2003), emphasize that authentic leaders, by expressing their true self in daily life live a good life (in an Aristotelian way). They claim this process results in self-realization on the part of the leaders, and in positive effects on followers’ self-realization as well. Authenticity is also represented to be an antidote to the crisis in leadership in practitioner writings, according to Sparrowe (2005). Sparrowe claims that it is seen as the way to restore confidence in business organizations after incidents like Enron and Arthur Andersen.
The relatively young theory of authentic leadership originates from several leading articles in which scholars have begun to define authentic leadership and its essential constructs. These constructs are defined with the intent of clarifying them at the very earliest stage of theory development. They serve the purpose of developing the beginnings of a theoretical framework as a basis for guiding future research on the mechanisms through which authentic leaders can influence follower’s attitudes, behaviours and performance. Albeit further testing and development of the theory is concerned to be indispensable. (Avolio et al., 2004; Gardner et al., 2005; Avolio & Gardner, 2005).
testing of their propositions in order to enhance the understanding, prediction, and application of authentic leadership, its development and the potential impact it can have on meeting today’s and tomorrow’s challenges of meaningful sustainable leadership performance (Avolio & Gardner, 2005).
In this research, the initial concept of authentic leadership is tested further by exploring the enhancing or obstructing influence of its constructs on the effectiveness of leadership. These constructs will be assessed using a qualitative case study methodology. In that way, this research will analyze whether a focus on authenticity can indeed increase leadership effectiveness, whereas previous articles and studies only tend to explain what organizations should do in order to focus on authenticity for enhancing leadership effectiveness.
The purpose of this research is to address this rather unattended field of research on authentic leadership, shedding light on the constructs that are argued to improve leadership effectiveness, and sustainable performance subsequently. In this, the variables of focus are formed by the constructs that are defined mainly in the theoretical frameworks of Avolio and Gardner (2005), Avolio et al. (2004) and Gardner et al. (2005). The corresponding central question of this research is therefore stated:
Does increasing authenticity in leadership increase the effectiveness of leadership?
2 - THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
To study whether an increase of authenticity increases leadership effectiveness, it is necessary to describe a theoretical foundation for this analysis. Therefore, in this chapter, the constructs of this research will be first described, defining the concepts of the stated research question; authenticity, leadership and leadership effectiveness.
Moreover, the constructs of authentic leadership theory as applied in this research will be described, of which the theoretical background is found mainly in the initiating articles on the topic, by Avolio et al. (2004), Avolio and Gardner (2005) and Gardner et al. (2005). These constructs will then be assessed on their influence on leadership effectiveness.
2.1 Authenticity
Avolio et al (2004) as well as Avolio and Gardner (2005) and Gardner et al. (2005) refer to the roots in ancient Greek philosophy for explaining authenticity (“To thine own self be true”). For describing the modern conception of authenticity, the three articles draw from the literature of Harter (2002) and Erickson (1995), defining authenticity as owning one’s personal experiences (values, emotions, thoughts and beliefs) and behaving in accordance to what one truly thinks and believes. This definition of authenticity is the leading definition used in the mentioned articles on authentic leadership and is therefore also the applied definition in this research. Hereby, as Gardner et al. (2005) emphasize, authenticity is not seen as a condition or competence that people do or do not possess. People can rather be described more or less authentic or inauthentic, which allows for a focus on the processes whereby leaders can grow and develop in becoming more authentic.
2.2 Leadership
Yukl (1989) concluded that there are numerous definitions of leadership applied by researchers, very often differing in accordance to the individual perspective and the aspect of leadership that is of most interest to them. He then describes several controversies regarding leadership, for instance that of leadership being a distinct phenomenon, rather than just a general social influence process.
However, because a rather broad description of authentic leadership will be applied in this research, it will follow Yukl’s (1989) advice to use the various conceptions of leadership as a source of different perspectives on a complex, multifaceted subject.
Thereto, for a definition of leadership, this research will draw from Yukl (1989): “Leadership includes influencing task objectives and strategies, influencing commitment and compliance in task behaviour to achieve these objectives, influencing group maintenance and identification, and influencing the culture of an organization.” (Yukl, 1989, p.253)
2.2 Leadership effectiveness
2.3 Authentic leadership
Avolio and Gardner (2005) claim that unique stressors facing organizations throughout the world today call for a different, renewed focus on what constitutes authentic leadership. Differing conditions compel organizations to constantly shift upwards as new challenges, technologies, market demands, and competition emerge. Avolio and Gardner (2005) suggest that challenges like that have precipitated an altered focus on restoring optimism, hope and confidence. It accentuates the importance of being able to display resiliency, to assist people in their search for meaning and connection by fostering a new self-awareness and to genuinely relate to all relevant stakeholders (associates, customers, suppliers, owners, and communities). Avolio and Gardner (2005) argue that leaders who thereby build enduring organizations, motivate their employees to provide superior customer service, and create long-term value for shareholders, will help organizations meet these challenges.
The challenging and turbulent times, stimulate a growing interest among both scholars and practitioners for authentic leadership. It is recognized that a more authentic leadership development strategy becomes relevant and is urgently needed for desirable and more effective outcomes (Avolio et al., 2004; Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Ilies et al. (2005) as well explain the relevance of authentic leadership by claiming the organizational context to be changing increasingly into a visible discourse on the importance of positive features of human functioning. They mention, for example, the importance of positive emotions, self-confidence and goal-fulfilment within authentic leadership for psychological and societal well-being.
Sparrowe (2005) argues that a lack of authenticity lies near the heart of what he describes to be the crisis of confidence in contemporary corporate leadership. He claims authentic leadership is the kind of leadership that can restore confidence, coming from individuals that are true to themselves, and whose transparency can transform or develop associates into leaders themselves.
Authentic leadership in general is considered a construct that can incorporate differing behavioural styles, because the behavioural style per se is not what necessarily differentiates the authentic from the inauthentic leader (Avolio et al., 2004). In essence, authentic leaders are presumed to act in accordance with deep personal values and convictions, making these transparent. This enables them to build credibility and win the respect and trust of followers, to encourage diverse viewpoints and build collaborative relationships with followers, to foster inclusive structures and positive ethical climates, hence leading in a manner that followers recognize as authentic (Avolio et al., 2004, Avolio & Gardner, 2005).
Gardner et al. (2005) explain that, most importantly, a leader must achieve authenticity through constructs of self-awareness, self-acceptance, and authentic actions and relationships. To encompass authentic relations with followers and associates, they emphasize, these relationships should be characterized by transparency, openness, and trust, by guidance toward worthy objectives, and by an emphasis on follower development.
For a typification of authentic leadership, the definition of Avolio & Gardner (2005) is adopted in this research. It outlines authentic leadership as ‘a process that draws from both positive psychological capacities and a highly developed organizational context, which results in both greater self-awareness and self-regulated positive behaviours on the part of leaders and associates, fostering positive self-development’, (2005, p. 321).
2.4 Constructs of authentic leadership
Leader self-awareness
The fundamental conception of the theory of authentic leadership is that authenticity herein is closely related to heightened levels of self-awareness of the leader. As Avolio & Gardner (2005) conclude, there appears to be a consensus among authors that a leader’s self-awareness is an appropriate starting point for interpreting what constitutes authentic leadership.
Self-awareness is described not to be a destination point, but rather a process where a leader learns to understand his or her unique talents, strengths, sense of purpose, core values, beliefs and desires. Moreover, it can concern having a fundamental awareness of one’s knowledge, experience, and capabilities (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Ilies et al. (2005) additionally describe the notion of a leader’s self-awareness not only to consist of his or her own personal characteristics and values, but also of motives, feelings, and cognitions. Moreover, Avolio and Gardner (2005) explain that such self-awareness occurs when leaders are aware of their existence, and what constitutes that existence within the context in which they operate.
Leader self-regulation
Self-regulation is, by Avolio and Gardner (2005), argued to be a process through which leaders align their values with their intentions and actions. The identified internal goals and standards that follow from a leader’s self-awareness are, once fully understood, expected to guide the behaviour of authentic leaders (Gardner et al., 2005). They consider self-regulatory processes to constitute defining components of authentic leadership. According to Avolio and Gardner (2005), regulation involves the processes whereby people exert self-control in three subsequent steps. First, by setting internal (existing or newly formulated) standards, then by assessing whether or not discrepancies exist between these standards and actual or expected outcomes, and last by identifying intended actions for reconciling these discrepancies. As a result of this process, Avolio and Gardner (2005) argue that leaders make their authentic selves (e.g., values, motives, goals) transparent to followers.
Gardner et al. (2005) expect authentic leadership behaviour to be driven primarily by internalized regulatory processes. Authentic leader’s identities, they state, are self-concordant as they pursue an integrated set of goals that reflect personal standards of conduct. Authenticity, according to them, involves owning one’s personal experiences (values, thoughts, emotions and beliefs) as well as acting in accordance with one’s true self.
Leadership context
themselves and followers to continually learn and grow. Therefore, sensitivity for or awareness of contextual factors that influence or can be influenced by an organization, is concluded to be regarded as increasing one’s leadership effectiveness in authentic leadership literature.
Positive psychological capital
Referring to an initial framework of authentic leadership by Luthans and Avolio (2003), Avolio and Gardner (2005) summarize the positive psychological capacities of confidence, optimism, hope and resiliency as personal resources of the authentic leader. These capacities then make for a positive psychological capital, they explain. This notion stems from positive organizational behaviour (POB) as a part of the positive psychology movement (Luthans and Youssef, 2004), which applies positively oriented human resource strengths and psychological capacities for performance improvement. According to Luthans and Youssef (2004), POB focuses on state-like skills (as opposed to dispositional, fixed, and trait-like characteristics). This implies that the organizational members can develop the capacities through proactive management and interventions. Moreover, it is emphasized that POB incorporates only psychological states that are validly measurable, and that can actually result in performance improvement. Consequently it is considered that, for increasing confidence, hope, optimism, and resiliency, effective interventions can be developed. The positive psychological capital can in that way be trained and its effectiveness can be objectively assessed.
Elaborating on the components of POB, Luthans and Youssef (2004), describe confidence as a person’s confidence in his or her ability to mobilize the necessary motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action for achieving a specific goal within a given context. They exemplify that people who are self-confident are more likely to choose challenging tasks, and to extend motivation and effort for accomplishing their goals.
Citing Seligman (2002), Avolio et al. (2004) define optimism in the context of authentic leadership as a cognitive process. This process involves positive outcome expectancies and causal attributions that are, in case of interpreting bad or negative events, external, temporary, and specific. In case of good or positive events, they are internal, stable, and global. Moreover, it is stated that people who display optimism are more likely to remain committed, satisfied and engaged, and that they feel more empowered, in that way capable of achieving superior performance in leadership.
Luthans and Youssef (2004) explain that hope can be seen as a motivational state, resulting from interaction between three factors: goals, agency and pathways. They state that it is a leader’s sense of agency that drives them to accomplish their goals, which provides them with an internalized determination and willpower to invest the needed effort. A sense of having the capability to develop ways to get the things they want, also motivates those with high hope, Luthans and Youssef state. This provides them with the ability to generate alternative pathways for achieving their goals, if necessary. Avolio et al. (2004) also claim hope to be a positive motivational state. They state that hope reflects the leader’s motivation and determination that goals can be achieved and that it reflects the leader’s belief that these goals can be attained by formulating successful plans and by generating workable routes for this attainment, similar to the propositions of Luthans and Youssef (2004).
Avolio and Gardner (2005) state that the above mentioned positive psychological capacities play a crucial role in the development of flourishing and prospering authentic individuals, teams, organizations, and communities. When combined with a positive organizational context and events or challenges, they are claimed by Avolio and Gardner (2005) to heighten the self-awareness and self regulatory behaviours of the leader, through a process of positive self-development.
Positive moral perspective
Authentic leadership and its development should include an ethical or moral component, claim Luthans and Avolio (2003). Avolio and Gardner (2005) stress it is essential to include a positive moral perspective in the work on authentic leadership development, at least throughout the developmental phase of the theory, to which they ascribe currently emerging work.
Avolio et al. (2004) emphasize that positive authentic leaders, through an identification process, are more likely to create positive moral among followers as well as a sense of identification with the central purposes of the leader and/or the organization.
Influence processes
Several processes have been proposed in authentic leadership theory until now through which leaders influence followers and their development. Avolio et al. (2004), Gardner et al. (2005), and Ilies et al. (2005) each describe personal and social identification processes through which followers come to identify with authentic leaders and their values. Moreover, multiple authors identify the positive modelling of the various components of authentic leadership, such as self-awareness, self-regulatory processes and positive psychological states, as a primary process for authentic leaders to influence and develop their followers (Avolio et al., 2004; Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner et al., 2005).
The influence process are explained, drawing on social exchange theory and using the principles of reciprocity (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). These authors argue that a display of unbiased processing of self-relevant information, personal integrity, and an authentic relational orientation by leaders, will in effect characterize the leader–follower relationships by high levels of respect, positive affect, and trust. Avolio and Gardner (2005) then outline that a higher quality and closer relationships will give rise to greater value congruence and follower reciprocation and will encourage behaviour that is consistent with the leader’s values. This reciprocity is posited to result in greater authenticity, and wellbeing, among followers as well.
Avolio & Gardner (2005) are of the opinion that only the processes of identification, positive modelling, emotional contagion, supporting self-determination, and positive social exchanges can explain how authentic leaders influence followers.
Follower development
Avolio and Gardner (2005) as well as Gardner et al. (2005) and Avolio et al. (2004) describe the development of followers as a construct that should be included in authentic leadership and its development, explaining that both leaders and followers will be developed over time while their mutual relationship becomes more authentic. This research however, does not assent to this notion, because the development of followers in this way is not seen as an inherent construct of authentic leadership that should be included in authentic leadership development and improvement, but mere a direct consequence of authentic leadership that stems from the influence processes as described before.
2.5 Research sub-questions
Based on this theoretical background and the described constructs, several sub-questions can be drafted in order to test these proposed constructs. As can be seen in the introductory section of this research, authentic leadership, existing of these constructs, is assumed to increase the effectiveness of leadership (Avolio et al., 2005; Avolio and Gardner, 2005). Therefore the research sub-questions will be assessed in the following empirical part of this research, in an attempt to measure the importance of the corresponding constructs for increasing leadership effectiveness in practice.
The sub-questions state:
1. Does leader self-awareness increase the effectiveness of leadership? 2. Does leader self-regulation increase the effectiveness of leadership?
3. Does understanding of organizational context increase the effectiveness of leadership? 4. Does leader positive psychological capital increase the effectiveness of leadership? 5. Does a leader positive moral perspective increase the effectiveness of leadership?
6. Does utilization of authentic leadership influence processes increase the effectiveness of leadership? Avolio and Gardner (2005), in their explanation of authentic leadership theory, give several concrete suggestions for further research that underline the relevance of these sub-questions. They, for example, suggest to conduct additional research on the relationship between authentic leadership and the levels of self-awareness, on the direct effects of the leader’s positive psychological capital for improved effectiveness, and on the importance of organizational contextual influences.
3 - METHOD
In this part, the methods underlying this research are outlined and clarified. The preliminary chapters of this thesis already indicate that this research does not test a newly developed theory through hypotheses-testing, but that it applies case study research in order to test the influence of the constructs forming the initial authentic leadership theory framework. This research thereto ascribes to the ideas of Eisenhardt (1989) for case study research.
Eisenhardt explains in her article, how theories can be further build and tested through use of a specific case study approach, offering a framework for executing that type of research in which she synthesized previous work on qualitative methods, case study research design and theory building and testing (Eisenhardt, 1989). The method focuses on using a selection of specific cases to build new theories, as close as possible to the ideal initial concept of no theory under consideration and no hypotheses to test. However, she recognizes that an ‘a priori specification of constructs’ is helpful and possible for shaping the initial design of theory-building research. Eisenhardt (1989) argues that such specification is valuable for it permits measuring constructs more accurately. Moreover, she stresses that if the measured constructs prove important, researchers will have a more thorough empirical grounding for the emergent theory. Figure 3.1 describes the process of building and testing theory through case study research, including the reasoning behind the various phases.
In this research, the described constructs of authentic leadership theory will be applied as a priori constructs for measuring their influence on leadership effectiveness, in order to test the propositions of contemporary authentic leadership theory.
A marginal note that has to be taken in mind is that preordained theoretical perspectives may bias and limit the research findings. Eisenhardt (1989) therefore calls for a careful execution of this approach, starting with a minimal theoretical founding. This refers to what Charmaz (2000) defines as constructivist grounded theory, in which researchers and subjects tend to frame their interaction and confer meaning upon it, making the viewer part of what is viewed rather than separate of it.
Because of this, the extensive examination of literature forms only the seventh and penultimate phase in Eisenhardt’s research framework, emphasizing the tentative function of the tested constructs. Eisenhardt (1989) explains that the research question may well shift during the research. Nonetheless, the linking of the research findings to existing literature, is particularly crucial in theory building and testing, she claims, because the findings often rest on a rather limited number of cases.
To test the appointed constructs and answer the research sub-questions, a total of ten cases are examined. The cases are selected using theoretical sampling, and therefore chosen for theoretical, and not statistical reasons. Random selection of the cases was for that reason not preferable (Eisenhardt, 1989). In theoretical sampling, the cases are selected simply because they are particularly suitable for illuminating and extending relationships and logic among constructs. The cases do not have to be representative of some population, as do data in extensive hypothesis testing research. The idea behind this method for sampling is that while single case-studies can demonstrate the existence of a phenomenon, a multiple case-study approach is able to provide a stronger basis for theory building or the testing of a priori constructs (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Only a limited number of cases could be examined. Therefore cases were selected of which the process of interest is transparently observable, meaning that they were likely to confirm or add to the emergent theory of authentic leadership (Pettigrew, 1990).
The cases were found through selecting and approaching respondents that can refer to case situations on leadership. The criterion was that they were or have been in a leadership position, or were or have been actively involved in (the development of) leadership in practice or of leadership theory from practice. In that way they were capable of assessing, or reasoning on, the influence of the authenticity constructs for leadership effectiveness.
The data for this research was obtained by interviewing the respondents, applying a semi-structured approach to bring about breadth and completeness as well as profundity in discussing the constructs (Stoffels, 1999). The respondents were asked to describe a case that could shed led on the influence of authenticity on leadership. By discussing this case openly, the research sub-questions have been addressed as well as the personal opinion of the respondent on the influence of the authenticity constructs. The results of this inquiry are processed in separate descriptions per case, and are listed in the following chapter.
attempt to explore causality between authenticity and leadership effectiveness, and was not harmful but actually intentional. Eisenhardt (1989) explains that this can give the researcher a head start, and allows for the researcher to collect data flexibly in order to probe particular emerging themes, if that occurs.
Moreover, additional data collection instruments can be applied if that is found necessary, for instance by adding questions to the developed interview protocol. In that way, the overestimation of one’s capabilities as an example of in-awareness was added as an interview subject, after the first interview.
Another important feature of the Eisenhardt framework is the subsequent analysis of within-case data and cross-case patterns. The purpose is to first examine and define unique patterns within each case, and thereafter search for general patterns across the cases. This prevents researchers from rushing into premature and false conclusions on general patterns. Moreover, closely examining each case separately can, in turn, simplify the comparison of the cases (Eisenhardt, 1989).
The sixth step in Eisenhardt’s framework is concerned with the shaping of hypotheses, based on the data analysis and the thereby explored patterns, in the preceding step. However, because this research concerns the testing of ‘a priori constructs’, the sixth step within this research will focus on the confirmation, extension or sharpening of these predetermined constructs, instead of the formulation of new hypotheses.
4 – DATA ANALYSIS
The data that resulted from the conducted interviews is summarized in this chapter. This data will be further analyzed using both within-case analysis and cross-case analysis. The purpose of this twofold analysis is to first look for unique patterns of findings within each separate case, before generalizing patterns across the cases. Moreover, the first step gives an extensive familiarity with each case, which can accelerate cross-case comparison (Eisenhardt, 1989).
4.1 Within-case analysis
Shown below is the interpretation of the cases in relation to the drafted research questions. These interpretations describe the unique patterns of the findings per case.
Case 1
Self-awareness is perceived to contribute to leadership effectiveness. However, leaders must acknowledge that this self-awareness also comprehends interpreting the context in which they operate (and the goals for leadership more specifically) and translating this to their personal functioning. Self-regulation is completely dependant on the level of self-awareness and cannot prosper if this is insufficient or otherwise a leader will self-regulate from a wrong starting point. This might be authentic, but can undermine the effectiveness of the leadership. Context is inherent to leadership but has a moderating relation with its effectiveness, rather than a necessitating relation. Hence, awareness of it is important. Nonetheless, context-awareness should also include good understanding of the individuals with whom one interacts, since leadership rests on this interaction. A leader should adjust his or her form of leadership to these individuals. Moreover her or she must relate (changes in) contextual factors, other than leadership goals, to his or her own leadership behaviour.
The possibility of applying influence through self-awareness and self-regulation is acknowledged, but the psychological and moral constructs are perceived mere moderators in this process and therefore not prerequisite components for leadership effectiveness. The variables of positive psychological capital and positive moral can also reduce leadership effectiveness. A strong confidence in one’s own leadership style for instance can impede one’s capability to observe discrepancies between this style and the leadership needs of the organization, lessening the willingness to adapt. Authentic behaviour in the sense of sufficing the proposed constructs is therefore not a warranty for true authentic and leadership effectiveness. Moreover, the theory of authentic leadership is not perceived to be an entirely new and innovative theory, since it shows important overlap with charismatic and transformational leadership theory, especially with regards to the notion of self-awareness.
Case 2
Awareness of leadership capabilities proves very important for leadership effectiveness in this case. However, it can also create its own pitfall if this awareness does not comprehend the leader’s inabilities. Not recognizing one’s personal flaws, and not regulating these, can negatively influence leadership effectiveness. Processes of self-regulation should focus on both strengths and weaknesses, but is directly dependent on self-awareness. Regulation of limited self-awareness can be counterproductive.
behaviour of others, including followers. However, emphasis should not be solely on influencing others, but one must adjust to these others as well.
The psychological capacities of confidence, hope, resilience, and optimism increase the leadership effectiveness substantially in this case. Although they are agreed to be relevant for differing leadership situations as well, they seem of explicit value for the organization in transition. Other settings, and other phases in an organization’s lifecycle are likely to ask for different degrees of these capacities. The moral capacities of courage, efficacy and resilience are contributing to effectiveness in this situation significantly too. However, they can also create a blind spot, if they are present excessively, because this seems to restrict self-reflection of the leader. Moreover, these capacities are not specifically regarded to improve ethical and sustained moral actions.
The constructs of authentic leadership are indeed regarded an important influence mechanism. Awareness of the possibility to utilize this through leading by example can increase the effectiveness of leadership. However, less authentic behaviour is argued to influence through the same mechanism, for which reason it can lead to ineffectiveness as well. Furthermore it is questioned what the consequences will be if people don’t relate to the authenticity of the leader.
Case 3
Given certain contextual factors, the respondent argues decisive leadership is needed in this case, for which it is necessary that the leader is aware of his/her values and beliefs, and capabilities as well. Moreover, self-awareness is regarded necessary for the leader to be able to lead transparently and genuinely. Besides that, leadership effectiveness will be dependent on a leader’s restrictions, which underlines the importance of self-awareness once more.
Self-regulation is an essential element of leadership and enlarges effectiveness. It makes a leader transparent and thereto credible and genuine. It is important for a leader to constantly reflect upon one’s leadership style, to maintain this and stay effective.
Context-awareness is of importance for a leader, because differing situations will ask for different leadership styles. On the other hand, a leader should be capable to create the right, constructive and positive settings in order for his team and himself to prosper.
The positive psychological capacities are regarded inherent to leadership effectiveness, and have helped the respondent in dealing with risks and difficulties in his job. Moreover, he believes these capacities enabled him to achieve his current leadership function. The capacities are explained to stimulate optimism and positivism with followers, through leading by example.
A positive moral perspective is important for leadership effectiveness, and is closely related to the latter positive capacities. Courage and resiliency have helped the respondent in guiding ancient and reluctant managers within his team. However, a positive moral is not mentioned to be of specific importance for addressing ethical issues or achieving sustained moral actions.
Case 4
Self-awareness is regarded a fundamental element of leadership, and can be further developed.
Awareness of the self can prevent leaders from stepping in their behavioural pitfalls. Enlarged self-awareness enables the leader to display authenticity, and displaying authenticity as well as transparency positively influences the relationship between leader and follower. Independent of the content of the authentic behaviour, followers value it for its clarity and credibility. Self-awareness is regarded not only to include awareness of values and beliefs, but of behaviour and its effects as well. Self-regulation, and the accompanying relational authenticity and transparency, improves the understanding between leader and followers, which also positively influences leadership effectiveness. Avoiding certain leadership tasks, because the leader is aware that these do not entirely match his/her personal capabilities is not seen as self-regulatory behaviour, and should therefore be evaded.
The environmental and organizational context influences leadership and should therefore be interpreted and acted upon by a leader if necessary. Besides that, a leader should attempt to create the right setting for people to perform. Transparency and leaving people enough room to express themselves thereby enlarges authenticity.
The positive psychological capacities are considered to be prerequisites for leadership effectiveness. They form important motivational drivers and enable a leader to feel secure and capable. The positive moral aspects of efficacy, courage and resilience are essential as well, for instance for handling risks and challenges, but they are not regarded specifically important for handling ethically, as proposed in authentic leadership theory. Moreover, a leader should constantly reflect upon these psychological and moral capacities and how they affect leadership effectiveness.
Positive modelling of the constructs of authentic leadership increases leader influence, and exemplary behaviour can stimulate followers to display similar behaviour. Leaders should therefore be more aware of the impact of their behaviour on others, and should reflect upon this frequently.
Case 5
Self-awareness is seen as an important feature of leadership effectiveness, but is also subject to the interactivity of leadership. For thorough self-awareness, a leader should be able to validate his or her characteristics through reflection by others. In that sense self-regulatory processes are important as well. Discrepancies can exist between the perception of the self by the leader and the perception of the leader by others. On the other hand, leaders receiving feedback tended to ignore and distort the feedback in such a way that it fitted their own perceptions. A deliberate behavioural deviation from one’s values and beliefs is proposed to be functional and effective for leadership as well.
Awareness of the influence of direct and indirect context on leadership therefore increases leadership effectiveness. Besides that, a leader can create an environment in which the enlargement of self-awareness and authenticity is valued and stimulated. Leadership is also regarded contextual and situational.
Case 6
The case illustrates that a limited self-awareness negatively influences the leader’s effectiveness, because of a discrepancy between the perceived capacities by the leader and the actual capacities of that leader.
With the leader not being aware of this personal pitfall, she was unable to accomplish her own and the organizational goals. Improving the self-awareness of the leader proved to help her lead more aware and more effective, regulating her actions based on self-knowledge of her capacities. This also indicates the importance of self-regulatory processes for leadership effectiveness. A leader must be able to assess discrepancies between his or her intentions and the outcomes of his or her behaviour.
Furthermore, awareness of the broader context and how this influences leadership is essential, as the misconception of context in this case shows. Moreover, by carefully determining and creating the staffing needs, a leader is presumed to be able to create the right context for authentic behaviour and learning and developing of both followers and leaders.
The positive psychological capital enables a leader to effectively lead an organization, and the capacities are regarded prerequisites, not mere moderators of authentic leadership. However, the case shows that the capacities can be based on a limited self-awareness as well, which diminishes effectiveness. A leader therefore should validate his or her perception of capacities or reflect upon them to assess their effects. A positive moral, and the capacities of courage and efficacy also prove important in this case but they are not directly linked to ethical decision making. Transparent and ethical decision making are perceived to enlarge leadership effectiveness by the respondent, because followers then learn the values and beliefs of the leader. It can however also be counterproductive if followers can not relate to these values and beliefs.
The respondent regards leading by example a primary influence mechanism, but therefore positive modelling of all of the constructs of authentic leadership is necessary. Incomplete modelling, and thereby in-authenticity, can negatively influence followers as well.
Case 7
The importance for a leader to be aware of personal core values and beliefs is confirmed by this case, but it is explicitly regarded to be of another level than awareness of one’s behaviour by the respondent. If self-awareness is lacking, a leader will tend to lead by applying tricks or gimmicks. Moreover it will need to comprehend awareness of both positive and negative aspects.
For authenticity to increase leadership effectiveness, congruence between the leader’s values and those of the followers is important. This illustrates that for authenticity to work, it is dependant on other factors as well. It is no guarantee for leadership effectiveness, rather for leadership suitability.
Self-regulatory processes are essential for a leader to utilize the awareness of the self. Perceived in-authenticity will limit leadership effectiveness.
The case shows that a leader can make use of existing contextual dynamics in leadership, and that leaders can influence the context to stimulate authenticity. Leaders should therefore be aware of the correlation between leadership and the context in which they operate. Besides that, a leader can influence the team setting and atmosphere for increased leadership effectiveness.
The same arguments apply for the importance of a positive moral perspective. The case demonstrates the positive effect of stimulating authentic behaviour, through authentically leading by example. The respondents argues moreover that this is the primary and only true influence mechanism, since in-authentic leadership (regarded as applying tricks) can only be effective in the short term.
Case 8
The relevance of self-awareness for a leader is demonstrated in this case, however, it is indissolubly connected to self-regulation. The case shows that a deviation of the own beliefs and values can make a leader implausible and in-genuine, when this deviation is noticed by followers. A deviation can be necessary, the respondent argues, but a leader should always be able to rationalize it. Otherwise, it will undermine leadership effectiveness. Self-regulation is therefore regarded the basis for leadership effectiveness by the respondent. Besides that, a leader should be able to self-reflect and be reflected upon by others, to enlarge self-awareness and improve self-regulatory processes. Acknowledging the need thereto implies self-awareness, as well. The importance of assessing the context for leadership effectiveness is illustrated strikingly by this case, because of the difficulties caused by the discrepancies in perspectives between the involved actors. The respondent attempts to actively shape her direct context by selecting people that are authentic and can reflect on her leadership behaviour, to stimulate self-awareness and –regulation, once more.
A positive psychological capital was helpful in this case, but that is rather obvious the respondent argues, and is not specifically different from numerous other psychological capacities. For instance, an energetic and motivated attitude could be added. The importance of a positive moral perspective is also not specifically confirmed. The respondent argues that a moral or ethical perspective is an implicit aspect of all activities within the public institution she works for, as it should be.
Furthermore, a leader should always be aware of the influence he or she has on others, including followers, which requires them to very carefully handle this responsibility. The case does not confirm that the display of authentic behaviour stimulates followers to behave accordingly, since reactions to it were various. Moreover, the respondent questions her true influence through leading by example.
Case 9
The importance of self-awareness for leadership is confirmed in this case, but self-reflection and reflection by others is mentioned to be an essential part of it. As the case illustrates, it is thereby also important for a leader to create a setting that can contribute to awareness of the self and of followers by stimulating this reflection on one another. The respondent describes a heightened level of self-awareness as ‘emotional maturity’. Self-regulation is essential. Leaders should distance themselves from their functioning, at times when self-reflection is necessary to address personal pitfalls or difficulties, thereby regulating their behaviour based on their self-knowledge. Self-regulation also includes taking drastic measures (resigning) if the deviation of one’s personal values becomes problematic, for maintaining reliable.
A leader can shape the direct context and thereby authentic behaviour significantly. The specific attempts for this purpose in this case illustrate that the team members value this approach and thereto act authentically and reflectively themselves. However, reluctance to express oneself unrestricted in a follower-leader relationship will remain present, although it can be reduced. Valuing and stimulating an authentic context can not be applied as a leadership trick, but should be genuine. Moreover a leader should be able to asses, utilize, and if necessary respond to contextual dynamics.
capacities might create a blind spot for leaders as well, by neglecting critique. The aspects of a positive moral perspective (courage, efficacy and resilience) prove to be of importance regarding this case. However their relevance is context dependant as well, the respondent argues, because followers must also be able to handle these leadership capacities. The capacities are not directly valued for ethical decision making.
The respondent regards positive modelling of all of the constructs effective for applying leadership-influence, in this particular case, but argues that its relevance is situational as well.
Case 10
The case underlines that self-awareness has at least a moderating effect on leadership effectiveness. However, the case illustrates that the self-awareness at hand concerns merely the capacities and behaviour of the leader and not specifically his values and beliefs. The respondent proposes that authentic leadership can also be based on limited awareness of these values, applied rather intuitively.
Self-regulation is proven essential in this case, but is closely connected to reflection. In order to self-regulate effectively, a leader should continuously reflect upon the needs of the organization and his or her own leadership. Leadership can be regulated in accordance to the situation, but only within the boundaries of the personal characteristics of the leader.
The leader at hand is aware of the context in which he and the museum operate, and proves to be responding to this on the one hand, and to create the right contextual circumstances for achieving leadership and organizational goals on the other hand. Awareness of context is therefore essential for leadership effectiveness.
Since leadership is concerned with achieving goals, the respondent believess that the positive psychological capacities are indispensable, because they represent positivism. In the case, they functioned as important motivators for the leader himself and for others as well. The importance of a positive moral perspective is underlined by the respondent, in order for a leader to be aware of the implications and impact of decisions, and to transparently justify the reasoning behind these decisions. However, the moral capacities of efficacy, courage and resiliency are regarded important for leadership effectiveness, but not prerequisites.
Authentic behaviour, and hence authentic leadership, can stimulate and motivate others and is therefore an important influence mechanism. Nonetheless, the respondent believess that people will not necessarily follow a leader in his exemplary behaviour, because their beliefs and values are not necessarily identical. Hence, it is more important that followers relate to the authentic behaviour of the leader.
In general, a leader’s personality and its boundaries are perceived to shape authenticity in leadership. Acting across these boundaries implies in-authenticity and will decrease leadership effectiveness.
4.2 Cross-case analysis
This paragraph comprises of the analysis of patterns across the different cases. Purpose of this two-fold analysis approach is not to reach premature or false conclusions based on a biased information-processing of the cases separately. The derived patterns can concern both within-group similarities and inter-group differences (Eisenhardt, 1989). To derive the patterns, the cases were categorized based on their similarities and differences. In case of sufficient resemblance between the cases (indications found in five or more cases), a cross-case pattern is formulated, and described below. Besides that, other interesting and hence noticeable comments are given as well.
Leader self-awareness increases leadership effectiveness
however varies within the cases, just as some important marginal comments on the effect of the construct. The most significant reason for the importance of self-awareness is to be able to utilize personal strengths or to counterbalance weaknesses (case 2/3/4/6/7/8/10). Besides that, the ability to assess the leadership environment and to translate this into one’s own leadership and behaviour is mentioned (case 1/3/9), just as the ability to be able to assess leadership effects (case 2/10).
Most important remark found is that it is crucial for a leader to be aware of both personal strengths and weaknesses, in order to properly exert self-control, through the self-regulatory processes as they are also proposed in authentic leadership theory. Awareness of personal weaknesses allows for a leader to recognize personal pitfalls and act accordingly. If this awareness is lacking, the self-regulatory processes will regulate in-awareness, most probably resulting in in-effectiveness (case 2/3/4/7).
Moreover, five cases (2/3/4/7/10) illustrate that self-awareness should include awareness of capacities or/and behaviour as well, besides the awareness of personal values and perspectives which is emphasized in authentic leadership theory. Another interesting marginal note, which can be derived from case 5, is that leader enhancement can possibly contribute to leadership effectiveness, because it can increase optimism, self-confidence and resiliency for instance.
Regarding case 10, the respondent argued that authenticity might be based on intuition as well, displaying authentic behaviour not specifically aware or intentional, but highly intuitive.
Last, case 7, indicates that it can be of importance for leadership effectiveness, that there exists congruence between the values of leader and those of their followers, in order to increase leadership effectiveness.
Self-regulation increases leadership effectiveness
The importance of self-regulatory behaviour is endorsed by all cases as well. Actually acting in accordance with one’s self-awareness is regarded at least as important as self-awareness itself. Different reasons found for this are the regulation of personal weaknesses and pitfalls thereto (case 2), perceived understanding, transparency, credibility and genuineness by followers (case 3/4/6), and most importantly, in-effectiveness through regulation of insufficient self-awareness (case 1/2/4/6/8). Besides that, perceived leader in-authenticity by followers can directly undermine the effectiveness of a leader (case 7/8). Discussing case 7, the respondent remarked that in-authentic leadership will result in leading by following tricks, regarded to only be effective in the short term, but in-effective if followers perceive it to be in-authentic. The respondent of case 8 explained that in-authentic behaviour caused followers to regard him/her implausible and incongruent.
Another distinct remark found is that self-regulation should also comprehend the interpretation of contextual factors and its influence on a leader’s functioning (case 1/9). One should self-regulate behaviour according to the contextual requisites. Moreover, regulation is directly claimed to be fully dependant on proper self-awareness by several respondents (case 1/2/8), and indirectly by others (case 4/6).
Last, two respondents argued that a deliberate deviation of one’s values, beliefs, etc. might be advantageous as well (case 5/8). An example mentioned is when essential organizational interests differ from the personal interests of the leader. However, it is emphasized that it remains important for a leader to carefully consider these interests and the discrepancies between them, and to stay close to one’s personal values.
Incorporation of organizational context in leadership increases its effectiveness
The importance of assessing the influence of contextual factors on leadership is found to be essential in eight of the ten cases. The other two cases underline its importance, but illustrate it to have a mere moderating role (case 1/2). Derived reasons for the importance of incorporating context into leadership are twofold. In the first place, the need to actively adjust leadership to its context is emphasized for enlarging effectiveness (case 1/2/3/4/5/9/10). Second, context is acknowledged to influence leadership effectiveness, but leadership is not specifically meant to adjust to it (case 6/7/8/9). These cases illustrate focus should be on context-awareness, whereby cases 7, 9 and 10 underline that a leader should be able to purposefully utilize the contextual dynamics in order to increase leadership effectiveness.
Besides that, most cases underline the possibility of a leader to shape and influence the organizational context, by creating a positive and constructive atmosphere and setting for people to perform (case 3/4/10) or for stimulating self-awareness and authenticity with followers (case 2/5/6/7/8/9). An important remark made is that a leader should be thoroughly aware of the individuals with whom one interacts in the direct organizational context, because leadership rests on this (effective) interaction (case 1). Moreover, case 2, shows that this interaction is a delicate interdependency, emphasizing not to focus solely on influencing others, but to adjust to these others as well. Last, only one of the respondents argued that it is of importance for a leader to actively shape his or her context through selecting the staffing, in order to increase leadership effectiveness (case 8). The respondent hereby explained that people are needed that can stimulate a leader to become more self-aware and more self-regulatory.
Positive psychological capacities and positive moral do not unambiguously increase leadership effectiveness
The results of the examined influence of the positive psychological capacities and a positive moral perspective on leadership effectiveness are diverse. Importance of these constructs for increased leadership effectiveness is confirmed by 5 cases (2/3/4/5/6), and is illustrated a moderating factor by case 1, 9 and 10. Shown reasons for their importance are the enablement to handle risks and difficulties (case 2/3/5), to lead the organization (case 6), and their motivating character (case 4/10).
Most important remark found with regards to this construct is that it the positive psychological capacities and positive moral can affect leadership counterproductively as well, decreasing its effectiveness (case 1/2/6/7/9). Case 1 and 2 show strikingly that a strong confidence in one’s own leadership can impede a leader’s capability to sense personal pitfalls and discrepancies with the leadership needed.
Positive modelling of the constructs of authentic leadership theory as an influence mechanism, does not unambiguously increase leadership effectiveness
The cases partly illustrate that the positive modelling of authentic leadership theory is an important influence mechanism, for which reason utilizing this mechanism is regarded to increase leadership effectiveness (case 2/3/6/7/10). Two other cases demonstrate it to be an important way of influencing, but not the primary mechanism (case 4/5). Derived reasons for its importance are that people will relate to the authentic behaviour and will then follow its example, because they value it for its clarity and credibility. Moreover, in-authenticity is regarded to only effectively influence in the short term, since people will ultimately recognize in-authentic behaviour, which will lessen leadership effectiveness (case 7/9).
There are, however, important marginal comments made as well. First, since the proposed influence mechanism rests on the principles of reciprocity, value congruence and leading by example. It is raised twice that in-authenticity can negatively influence followers through this mechanism (case 2/5). Second, various respondents argue that followers do not necessarily relate to the authenticity of a leader, which will cause differing reactions, possibly even contradictory reactions, which will reduce influence and hence leadership effectiveness (case 2/6/8/9/10). Last, one of the respondent explained that followers are likely to always remain partly reluctant to be fully authentic in the presence of their leaders (case 9).
The found and described cross-case patterns are reproduced graphically in figure 4.2, below, by way of illustration. It shows the perceived importance of the constructs for increasing leadership effectiveness. Furthermore, the spreadsheet used for the categorization of cross-case patterns within this analysis, is added in the appendix of this rapport.
5 – REFINING THE TESTED CONSTRUCTS
Using the derived cross-case patterns of the latter chapter, this chapter contains a confirmation, refining or sharpening of the tested a priori constructs, as they were first described in the theoretical background of this study. Therefore, it is needed to make use of a standard for deciding which patterns justify the confirmation or refining of a corresponding construct. Eisenhardt (1989), in her method for case study research, does not offer a concrete method for appointing valid patterns, but poses that researchers should simply choose them based on their own judgement.
Exploring the issues related to the difficulty of establishing validity criteria in qualitative research, Whittemore et al. (2001) recommend the use of credibility and authenticity as primary criteria of validity:
Credibility; do the results of the research reflect the experience of participants or the case in a believable way?
Authenticity; does a representation of the perspectives exhibit awareness to the (subtle) differences in the voices of all participants? (Whittemore et al., 2001: 530)
Therefore, in this research, patterns that are found in five or more cases are used to confirm, sharpen or refine the initial a priori constructs (for credibility), and remarkable notions found in less than five cases are described to exhibit found differences and marginal comments (for authenticity).
Construct of self-awareness
Leader self-awareness increases leadership effectiveness. Besides awareness of talents, strengths, sense of purpose, core values, beliefs and desires, it should concern having a fundamental awareness of:
- personal weaknesses and in-capabilities; - personal behaviour and its effects;
Marginal comments:
On the contrary, the effectiveness of leadership might be increased by (a partly) in-awareness of the self, by means of leader self-enhancement, which can for instance increase optimism, self-confidence and resiliency. In addition to this construct, leadership effectiveness is posited to increase if there exists congruence between the values and beliefs that shape the self-awareness of leaders, and those of their followers.
Besides that, authentic leadership is possibly based (partly) on intuition, for which reason in-awareness does not necessarily lead to in-effectiveness.
Construct of self-regulation
Leader self-regulation increases leadership effectiveness. It requires an appropriate level of self-awareness, in order to not self-regulate insufficient self-awareness. Moreover, it should concern reflection on the leader’s functioning, by the self and by others.
Marginal comments:
Moreover, self-regulation should comprehend the interpretation of context and its influence on the functioning of the leader as well.
Construct of context and context-awareness
Incorporation of the situational context in one’s leadership increases leadership effectiveness. This incorporation is twofold; leadership should be adjusted to fit its context, and leadership should stimulate an atmosphere in which authenticity can prosper.
Marginal comments:
Context has a mere moderating influence on leadership effectiveness, for which reason incorporation of it is not essential.
In addition to the adjustment to context and context adjustment, leaders should be capable of utilizing contextual dynamics in order to increase leadership effectiveness. Furthermore, the individuals with whom one interacts form an important contextual factor that leadership should concern. Last, leaders can create a direct staffing context that stimulates leadership-reflection, in order to enlarge self-awareness.
Construct of positive psychological capital
A positive psychological capital can increase leadership effectiveness.
Marginal comments:
Positive psychological capacities rather have a moderating influence on leadership, which implies they are not essential elements for increasing its effectiveness. Besides that, a positive psychological capital can decrease effectiveness as well, if they obstruct self-criticism and hence self-awareness.
Further, the value of the proposed capacities (confidence, optimism, hope, resilience) for leadership effectiveness can differ throughout situations. Moreover, their value can be overestimated, and various other psychological capacities might be of relevance.
Construct of positive moral perspective:
A positive moral perspective can increase the effectiveness of leadership. The capacities have a moderating influence on ethical and sustained moral actions by leaders.
Marginal comments:
The capacities belonging to a positive moral (efficacy, courage, resilience) can decrease leadership effectiveness counterproductively, if they obstruct self-criticism and hence self-awareness.
Construct of leadership influence processes:
Positive modelling of the constructs of authentic leadership can increase leadership effectiveness.
Marginal comments:
Figure 5.0 graphically reproduces the refined a priori constructs, as they are described is this chapter. This highlights the alterations and additions made to the constructs, concerning their influence on leadership effectiveness.
