Linking authentic leadership to organizational citizenship behavior:
The mediating roles of identification and psychological capital
Master Thesis, Human Resource Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
September, 2011
Ronald Weijn Studentnumber: 1697188
Ambonstraat 1a 9715 HA Groningen Tel.: +31 (0)6-29072595 E-mail: ronaldweijn@gmail.com
Supervisor L. Mulder
2 ABSTRACT
This study investigated the relationship between authentic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Identification with the supervisor and the four components of psychological capital (self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience) are examined as mediators to the authentic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior relationship.
Results from 140 employees revealed that resilience was the only mediator in the authentic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior relationship. Implications of the findings for theory and practice are discussed.
3 Linking authentic leadership to organizational citizenship behavior
The construct of authentic leadership has recently emerged as an area of interest that is different from ethical and transformational leadership (Avolio et al., 2004; Gardner et al., 2005; Sosik & Cameron, 2010). Avolio et al. (2004) speculate that the increased interest in authentic leadership by practitioners and scholars is because authentic leaders have a bigger role to play in the greater society by dealing with public policy issues and addressing
organizational and societal problems than other type of leaders because of specific personality traits and more effective coping behaviors. Avolio et al. (2004) further noted that unique stressors facing organizations call for a new leadership approach aimed at improving confidence, hope, optimism and resilience.
To date, although there is an increased interest in authentic leadership, little empirical research has been conducted in order to better understand the mechanisms by which authentic leaders exert their influence on effective behaviors (Walumbwa et al., 2011). Also,
Yammarino et al. (2008) state that authentic leadership needs to be theoretically articulated and empirically tested. Walumba et al. (2011) define authentic leadership as a pattern of leader behaviors that are transparent, consistent in developmental and exemplary behavior, in a way that is true to the self and others. For example, an authentic leader might more often than a transformational or ethical leader make difficult decisions about high standards of ethical conduct or display emotions exactly in line with feelings. These type of behaviors may positively affect employee behaviors, such as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) – behaviors that are not required but are necessary to facilitate effective (organizational) functioning. According to Ilies et al. (2005), this positive influence of authentic leaders on follower‟s behaviors is because authentic leaders provide support for their self-determination.
The major objective of this study is to extend authentic leadership research to make clear the underlying mechanisms that allow authentic leaders to exert their influence on
4 followers‟ attitudes, behaviors, and performance. This study sets out to examine how
authentic leadership behavior relates to employees‟ organizational citizenship behaviors.
5 1. THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
1.1 Authentic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior
Human behaviors are, according to the social information processing approach (SIP; Salancik
& Pfeffer, 1978) and according to the social exchange theory (SET), greatly influenced by their direct environment. One important source of information that affects group members‟
behaviors comes from the immediate work environment, such as the leaders they have (Walumbwa et al., 2011). It has been argued that leadership behaviors that stimulate a sense of obligation and reciprocation may lead followers to go beyond their formal duties to help others, thus displaying organizational citizenship behavior (Walumbwa et al., 2011). One form of leadership that recent research focuses on, is authentic leadership.
Walumba et al. (2011) define authentic leadership as “a pattern of leader behavior that draws upon and promotes both positive psychological capacities and a positive ethical
climate, to foster greater self-awareness, an internalized moral perspective, balanced processing of information, and relational transparency on the part of leaders working with followers, fostering positive self-development‟‟ (Walumbwa et al., 2011, p. 4). They define authentic leadership by the following four types of leader behaviors: balanced processing, internalized moral perspective, relational transparency, and self-awareness. Balanced processing refers to the lower amount of susceptibility to denials, distortions, and
exaggerations. Internalized moral refers to guidance by internal moral standards, instead of external pressure. Relational transparency refers to aiming at promoting trust through openly sharing information and expressions of the leader‟s true thoughts and feelings. Self-awareness refers to leaders being able to understand their feelings, motives, and weaknesses and how others view their leadership (Walumbwa et al., 2011).
Having an authentic leader can have a positive effect on a follower‟s behavior.
Literature suggested that authentic leadership may positively affect behaviors such as
6 organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Walumbwa et al., 2008; Walumbwa et al., 2010;
Walumbwa et al., 2011). Organizational citizenship behavior refers to employee behaviors that are not critical to the task or job, but serve to facilitate organizational functioning. For example, adjusting your work schedule to accommodate other employees‟ requests for time off, helping others who have been absent, and defending the organization when other employees criticize it. Understanding why employees engage in organizational citizenship behavior is of considerable interest (Lee & Allen, 2002). Podsakoff et al. (2000) identified several determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. The most pertinent in their study were leader behaviors. Even though former correlational studies (Walumbwa et al., 2010;
Walumbwa et al., 2011) made clear that there is a relationship between authentic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior, it is still unknown how authentic leadership
influences this behavior. One possible explanation might be the extent to which a follower identifies himself with his or her supervisor.
1.1.1 Identification with the supervisor
Research on identification with others have increased over the past decade (van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Identification can be defined as a part of an individual‟s identity that changes and develops to or shares similar values and beliefs with another individual. Identifying with an individual involves for example feeling strong ties, experiencing a sense of belonging, and sharing similar values and beliefs with another individual. It is suggested that followers are more likely to identify themselves with authentic leaders as opposed to non-authentic leaders.
Walumbwa et al. (2010) predict this is because authentic leaders place a premium on
interdependent relationships. Authentic leaders show respect to each follower, are described as more positive, and are more willing to create openness in their relationships. They are transparent with respect to important issues and convey these through action and deeds. By
7 setting this personal example of high moral standards, followers are more likely to like the leader and identify with him or her. By identifying with the leader, followers are more likely to enact what the leader emphasizes by his or her behavior. A higher level of identification with one‟s leader will also positively relate to the level of follower motivation to engage in activities that pursue the leader‟s work agenda. This will be most notably in terms of going beyond the call of duty by engaging in organizational citizenship behavior (Walumbwa et al., 2010). Sluss & Ashforth (2007) additionally argue that when a follower has changed his values and beliefs to be similar with his or her supervisor, a follower is likely to internalize performance standards and norms that are communicated by his or her supervisor. As an authentic leader is showing exemplary organizational citizenship behavior, a follower is likely to do the same and show this behavior as well. Thus, identification can help explain how followers develop values and beliefs within an organization and how that relates to the leader (Walumbwa et al., 2010). This leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: The positive relationship between authentic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior is mediated by identification with the supervisor.
1.1.2 Psychological capital
Although identification is an important possible mediator of the authentic leadership to organizational citizenship behavior relationship, other processes may also explain why authentic leadership increases organizational citizenship behavior. Literature has suggested that psychological capital also plays an important role (Luthans & Youssef, 2007). Luthans &
Youssef (2007) define psychological capital as having four different components: self- efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience. Self-efficacy can be defined as the confidence of an individual about his or her abilities to successfully execute a specific task within a given
8 context (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Luthans & Youssef (2007) define optimism as an
attribute that leads positive events to be explained through personal, permanent, and pervasive causes and negative events through external, temporary, and situation-specific ones. As a result, optimists build positive expectancies that motivate their goal pursuit and approach coping behavior in the future. Hope is defined as a positive motivational state that is based on an interactively derived sense of successful directing energy towards goals and planning to meet goals (Snyder et al., 1991, as is described in Luthans & Youssef, 2007). Hope involves the process by which alternative pathways are created and adapted to achieve goals.
Recognized interventions to enhance hope are: setting goals slightly beyond reach and “out- of-the-box” thinking. Resilience is defined as the capacity to rebound or bounce back from negative events such as adversity, conflict, failure, or even positive events such as progress, and increased responsibility (Luthans, 2002).
Authentic leadership may foster organizational citizenship behaviors because authentic leaders increase employees‟ psychological capital. For example, by behaving transparent, an authentic leader could analyze relevant information from another group member and openly share this information with his or her followers. The ideas from individual group members, can be applied to other group members, which results in members becoming more confident in their abilities. This provides group members the opportunities to develop and in turn raises self-efficacy. Also, authentic leadership may increase optimism through social learning.
Peterson (2000) states that optimism can be acquired through modeling. As authentic leaders are described as having a higher self-awareness and a more balanced processing of
information they are more likely to adopt active and adaptive coping skills when faced with challenges. In turn, they are more likely to motivate group members to do the same, resulting in higher levels of optimism (Walumbwa et al., 2011). Walumbwa et al. (2011) further state that authentic leaders build group members‟ hope by their ability to remain realistically
9 hopeful even in difficult situations. Combined with their future-orientation regarding their thinking and acting, they will stick closer to objective information in building group
members‟ hope. Masten & Reed (2002, as is described by Walumbwa et al., 2011) found that resilience can be enhanced by moving positive goals to the forefront of an individual‟s awareness. Via the leader‟s heightened self-awareness he or she knows his/her own capabilities and by a more balanced processing of information a leader also knows the capabilities of his or her followers. With this information authentic leaders sustain group members through periods of challenge and are likely to influence group members‟ resilience.
By knowing what capabilities group members have, an authentic leader can utilize those capabilities to guide group members in the right direction to make them more adaptable to changing environments and thereby increase resilience. Moreover, by being a role model of resilience, followers may emulate resiliency stimulating values and behaviors of authentic leaders and in turn become more resilient themselves.
Walumbwa et al. (2011) argue that individuals who score high on psychological capital produce outcomes such as organizational citizenship behavior. Self-efficacy plays an important role in motivation, because members of a team have to rely, at least to some extent, on others to accomplish their tasks. When faced with obstacles, members with a higher level of self-efficacy are more likely to persist in trying to solve such problems. This development of commitment to goals enhances the performance competencies as well as prosocial helping behaviors such as organizational citizenship behavior. Besides the positive impact of self- efficacy, members high in optimism and hope enhance organizational citizenship behaviors as well. Optimism and hope involves cognitive components, emotional components,
motivational components, and searching for alternative ways to reach goals. This will help members be more persistent and successful. Such members will not only have the will to succeed, but also pursue the way to success, thus enhancing organizational citizenship
10 behavior (Walumbwa et al., 2011). Finally, members high in resilience should be more open to adapting and coping with difficult situations or challenges. Members demonstrating resilience should also be more willing to help others members to be able to maintain their positivity, continue to perform well, and pursue roles that are more satisfying to them (Walumbwa et al., 2011). Taken together, the following hypothesis is presented:
Hypothesis 2: The positive relationship between authentic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior is mediated by the four components of psychological capital.
Although found to be linked to authentic leadership, psychological capital has not yet received much attention in research (Walumbwa et al., 2011). This is partly because it is a fairly new construct. One group of authors who did study psychological capital found a mediating effect in the relationship between authentic leadership and organizational
citizenship (Walumbwa et al., 2011). They measured authentic leadership and psychological capital with a measurement created by themselves where psychological capital was measured with items very similar to authentic leadership. For example, one item of their authentic leadership measurement is about the leader causing his or her followers‟ to speak their mind, while one item of the psychological capital measurement is about feeling confident to speak your mind. These items may share conceptual overlap. This may cause a lack in discriminant validity between authentic leadership and psychological capital. Moreover, Walumbwa et al.
(2011) measured the four components of psychological capital as one construct. The current study uses four different measurements and applies four different definitions for the four components of psychological capital, all previously tested for validity and reliability. The hypotheses are tested with an online survey on leadership and employee behaviors in which the above variables were measured (Figure 1).
11
Figure 1. Hypothesized theoretical model.
12 2. METHODS
2.1 Design and Participants
In total 251 people were contacted from various industries from The Netherlands, mostly from regions Groningen and Gelderland. Participants were mostly direct and indirect contacts of the author. In the intentions it was made clear that there was a pre-selection for being an employee. Usable data was returned by 140 participants. The average age of the participants was about 37 years (min = 16, max = 66, SD = 12.40), 43.6 percent were male and 51.4 percent were female. Average length of employment under the same supervisor was 2.59 years (min = less than one year, max = 23, SD = 4.02). Average highest level of education was between secondary and higher vocational education (min = preparatory secondary
vocational education, max = science education). The survey took on average 10-15 minutes to complete.
2.2 Procedure
Participants were asked to take part in a survey concerning leadership and employee behavior.
They were sent an e-mail with a link. Participants were asked to keep their own supervisor in mind throughout answering all questions. Participants were told that all anonymity was guaranteed. Then, questions were asked on authentic leadership, identification with the supervisor, and the four components of psychological capital.
2.3 Measures
2.3.1 Authentic Leadership.
Authentic leadership behavior was measured using the Dutch translation of the 16-items Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) (Walumbwa et al., 2008), with a 7-point response Likert scale (1 = totally disagree, 7 = totally agree). Sample items included the following:
13
“My leader says exactly what he or she means”, “My leader solicits views that challenge his or her deeply held positions”, and “My leader shows he or she understands how specific actions impact others”. They formed a reliable scale (α = .94). See the Appendix for the complete used questionnaire.
2.3.2 Identification with the supervisor.
Identification with the supervisor was measured using two measurements. A confirmatory factor analysis showed that the two measurements could be seen as one factor. The first was Identification with the leader and trust in the leader (Shamir et al., 1998) with a 7-point response Likert scale (1 = totally disagree, 7 = totally agree). Sample items were: “I have complete faith in him or her”, I trust his or her judgment and decisions completely”, and “My values are similar to his or her values”. The second was Organizational identification by Walumbwa et al. (2011). The scale was anchored with a 7-point response Likert scale (1 = totally disagree, 7 = totally agree). Sample items were: "I feel strong ties with my supervisor,"
"I feel proud to work for my supervisor," and "I am glad to be a member of the team of my supervisor". The 12-items combined measurement formed a more reliable scale (α = .97) than only the first (α = .95) or the second (α = .92). All items were translated to Dutch. See the Appendix for the complete used questionnaire.
2.3.3 Psychological Capital
2.3.3.1 Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy was measured using two measurements. A
confirmatory factor analysis showed that the two measurements could be seen as one factor.
The first was measurement was the Role Breadth Self-Efficacy measurement (Parker, 1998) in which various behaviors were presented of which participants were asked to indicate how confident they were to carry out such behaviors. The measurement had a 5-point response
14 Likert scale (1 = not at all confident, 5 = very confident). Sample behaviors were: “Analyzing a long-term problem to find a solution”, “Contributing to discussions about the company's strategy”, and “Visiting people from other departments to suggest doing things differently”.
The second one was a measurement by Walumbwa et al. (2011). The scale was anchored with a 5-point response Likert scale (1 = not at all confident, 5 = very confident). Sample items were: “I am confident about my ability to do my job”, “I am self-assured about my
capabilities to perform my work activities”, and “I have mastered the skills necessary for my job”. The 13-items measurement formed a more reliable scale (α = .91) than only the first (α = .89) or the second (α = .91). All items were translated to Dutch. See the Appendix for the complete used questionnaire.
2.3.3.2 Optimism. Optimism was measured using the 8 focal items from the
12-items Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R) measurement (Scheier et al., 1985), with a 5-point Likert response scale (1 = not at all, 5 = frequently, if not always). Sample items were:
“In uncertain times, I usually expect the best”, “I hardly ever expect things to go my way”, and “I rarely count on good things happening to me”. They formed a reliable scale (α =.71).
All items were translated to Dutch. See the Appendix for the complete used questionnaire.
2.3.3.3 Hope. Hope was measured using the 6-items GRIT measurement
(Duckworth et al., 2007). GRIT is defined as perseverance and passion for long-term goals and it entails working actively toward challenges, maintaining effort and interest over years despite failure and adversity. The scale measures consistency of interests and perseverance of effort. For this questionnaire, only items from perseverance of effort were adopted. The scale was anchored with a 5-point Likert response scale (1 = not at all, 5 = frequently, if not always). Sample items were: “I have achieved a goal that took years of work”, “I finish
whatever I begin”, and “I am a hard worker”. They formed a reliable scale (α = .69). All items were translated to Dutch. See the Appendix for the complete used questionnaire.
15 2.3.3.4 Resilience. Resilience was measured using a 14-items measurement by
Wagnild et al. (1993), because it is considered the most accurate according to a review of instruments measuring resilience (Ahern et al., 2006). The scale was anchored with a 5-point response Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5 = frequently, if not always). Sample items were: “I usually manage one way or another”, “I am determined”, and “My life has meaning”. They formed a reliable scale (α = .84). All items were translated to Dutch. See the Appendix for the complete used questionnaire.
2.3.4 Organizational Citizenship Behavior.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior was measured using a 16-items measurement by Lee &
Allen (2002), with a 5-point response Likert scale (1 = never, 5 = always). Sample items were: “Help others who have been absent”, “Assist others with their duties”, and “Offer ideas to improve the functioning of the organization”. They formed a reliable scale (α = .87). All items were translated to Dutch. See the Appendix for the complete used questionnaire.
16 3. RESULTS
3.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis
All of the measures used in this study were self-report surveys. First, to verify that authentic leadership is conceptually distinct from identification with the supervisor two confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted, the first to test whether authentic leadership and identification with the supervisor can be regarded as two different factors and the second to test whether both variables can be regarded as one factor. The analyses showed that authentic leadership and identification with the supervisor seen as two different factors (χ2 = 1134.221;
df = 349; CFI = .783, RMSEA = .127) and seen as one factor (χ2 = 1277.904; df = 350; CFI = .744, RMSEA = .138) represent an about equal bad fit. So the items of the two concepts were so strongly related that it cannot be concluded that authentic leadership and identification with the supervisor are two different constructs.
Second, to verify that authentic leadership is distinct from the four components of psychological capital (self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience), three confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted, the first to test whether authentic leadership, self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience can be regarded as different factors, the second to test whether authentic leadership on the one hand and self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience on the other hand can be regarded as two different factors, and the third to test whether all variables can be regarded as one factor. The results indicated that the five factor model fits the data (χ2
= 2991.532; df = 1530; CFI = .631, RMSEA = .083) better than the two factor model (χ2 = 3337.702; df = 1538; CFI = .546, RMSEA = .092) or the one factor model (χ2 = 4306.809; df
= 1539; CFI = .301, RMSEA = .114). However, the five factor model does not fit the data well enough to conclude that authentic leadership can be described as being distinct from self- efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience and that these four components are also distinct from each other. This may cause a limitation in the to be drawn conclusions. Future research may
17 therefore first want to do an exploratory factor analysis to remove cross loading items before doing a confirmatory factor analysis. A cross loading item is a single item which loads on multiple factors. Removing such items may increase model fit. Although the data fits the model weakly, it might still explain enough variance to be able to draw conclusions. This will be reviewed in the next section: hypothesis testing.
3.2 Hypothesis testing
Descriptive statistics and correlations for all variables are shown in Table 1 (Appendix).
Baron & Kenny (1998) have discussed four conditions for establishing the role of any mediator. According to this work, establishing the role of any mediator (taking identification with the supervisor as an example) in the authentic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior relationship involves meeting four conditions: 1) Authentic leadership is related to identification with the supervisor, 2) identification with the supervisor is related to
organizational citizenship behavior, 3) authentic leadership is related to organizational citizenship behavior, and 4) the strength of the relationship between authentic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior is reduced when identification with the supervisor is added to the model. However the third condition does not have to be met necessarily when the relationship between authentic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior is distal (Kenny et al., 1998).
Using AMOS, a structural equation modeling approach (SEM) is used to test to what extent the data fits the model. The SEM technique is used because it is considered to be more rigorous than stepwise regression techniques as using SEM all mediation paths are measured simultaneously (Clapp-Smith et al., 2009).
18 Figure 2. Path coefficients of the conceptual model.
3.2.1 Hypothesis 1: Authentic leadership, identification with the supervisor, and organizational citizenship behavior.
Hypothesis 1 predicted that the positive relationship between authentic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior is mediated by identification with the supervisor. First, structural equation modeling is used to test to what extent the data fits the model. The results show that the data does not fit the model (χ2 = 204,967; df = 31; CFI = .760, RMSEA = .177).
Therefore, path coefficients cannot be interpreted via structural equation modeling. Instead, a bootstrap procedure, developed by Preacher & Hayes (2008), was used to test all path
coefficients, both separately and simultaneously. Preacher & Hayes (2008) developed a macro, to be used in SPSS, to estimate path coefficients in a multiple mediator model and generates bootstrap confidence intervals for total and specific indirect effects of the
independent variable on the dependent variable through one or more mediators. This macro is superior to the SOBEL test, as it allows for more than one mediator and adjusts all paths
19 accordingly. Results for total, direct and indirect effects of authentic leadership based on this method are shown in Table 2 (Appendix). Figure 2 presents the path coefficients of the conceptual model. Table 2 shows that authentic leadership is positively linked to
identification with the supervisor (β = 1.01 , p < .01). The relationship between identification with the supervisor and organizational citizenship behavior is non-significant. This violates condition two of Baron & Kenny‟s (1998) four conditions to establish the role of any mediator. Thus, hypothesis 1 is therefore not supported: identification with the supervisor does not mediate the relationship between authentic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior.
3.2.2 Hypothesis 2: Authentic leadership, self-efficacy, optimism, hope, resilience, and organizational citizenship behavior.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that the positive relationship between authentic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior is mediated by self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience. Table 2 (Appendix) shows that authentic leadership is only positively linked to self-efficacy (β = .08; p < 0.05) and resilience (β = .09; p < 0.01). The relationship between authentic leadership and optimism and hope is non-significant, therefore these variables cannot be mediators as they violate condition one of Baron & Kenny‟s (1998) four conditions to establish the role of any mediator. Concerning the relationship between the mediators and organizational citizenship behavior, Figure 2 shows that self-efficacy is not linked to
organizational citizenship behavior. Self-efficacy can therefore not be a mediator, it violates condition two of Baron & Kenny‟s (1998) four conditions to establish the role of any
mediator. Table 2 shows that only resilience is positively linked to organizational citizenship behavior (β = .39; p < 0.01). This makes resilience the only possible mediator in the authentic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior relationship according to the four
20 conditions to establish the role of any mediator described by Baron & Kenny (1998). Using the method developed by Preacher & Hayes (2008), resilience is tested for a possible mediating effect. Table 2 shows that resilience does mediate the relationship between
authentic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior (β = .04; p < 0.01). Furthermore this same bootstrap procedure, developed by Preacher & Hayes (2008), was used to test for an effect for all mediating variables together. However, no significant overall indirect effect for all mediating variables were found. Thus, hypothesis 2 is partially supported: only resilience mediates the relationship between authentic leadership and organizational citizenship
behavior.
21 4. DISCUSSION
Although there is an increased interest in authentic leadership, little empirical research has been conducted in order to better understand the mechanisms by which authentic leaders exert their influence on effective behaviors such as organizational citizenship behavior (Walumbwa et al., 2011). In this study, it was tested whether identification with the supervisor and the four components of psychological capital (self-efficacy, optimism, hope, resilience) mediated the relationship between authentic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. These two constructs have been proposed mediators in previous conceptual models of authentic
leadership (Walumbwa et al., 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2010). However, the effect of authentic leadership on the four different components of psychological capital separately tested was not yet researched.
The results showed that authentic leadership was weakly related to organizational citizenship behavior. Authentic leadership was related to identification with the supervisor, but the latter did not mediate the relationship between authentic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. Authentic leadership was found to be related to self-efficacy and
resilience, but not to optimism and hope. Resilience was the only component to mediate the relationship between authentic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. As a result, no evidence was found that authentic leadership had an indirect effect on organizational citizenship behavior through all mediators together. The overall conceptual model was
therefore rejected. However, one important conclusion can be drawn from these results: to the extent that authentic leadership increases organizational citizenship behavior, all explained variance is due to resilience. This makes resilience an important variable to consider. Below is discussed the theoretical and practical implications of the findings and the limitations of the study.
22 4.1 Theoretical implications
Results of this study were different from previous research on the same subject. Walumbwa et al. (2010) have found a mediating effect for identification with the supervisor between
authentic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. The results in this study have only showed a relationship between authentic leadership and identification with the
supervisor. This difference in finding might be due to the high correlation between authentic leadership and identification with the supervisor found in this study. Both questionnaires seem to have measured the same construct. Therefore, it is uncertain whether this research has formed a good test of the mediating role of identification with the supervisor.
Another important finding which is different from previous research is for the mediating effect of psychological capital. Walumbwa et al. (2011) have found a mediating effect for psychological capital between authentic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. They developed the Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ) where each of the four components (self-efficacy, optimism, hope, resilience) were adapted from a different existing questionnaire. They used only two questionnaire items per psychological capital component, which is less than the three or more questionnaire items per subscale that is recommended to help increase reliability. Furthermore, they regarded authentic leadership and psychological capital as two different constructs, while the items of the measurements they used of both constructs shared conceptual overlap. This similarity in definition may have lead to increased correlations between both constructs and in turn caused the significant
relationships. The current study used a different questionnaire to measure each component of psychological capital separately and showed that these components were different from the concept of authentic leadership. This lead to the finding that not psychological capital as a whole, nor did hope or optimism mediate the relationship between authentic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. Although authentic leadership did increase self-efficacy,
23 this did not mediate the relationship either. Only resilience mediated the authentic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior relationship. Thus, when an authentic leader behaves in a certain way which increases the extent to which a follower expresses organizational citizenship behavior, this change might be due to a development in a follower‟s resilience. As such, resilience may be the critical intervening variable linking leader and behavioral
outcomes. How this can be interpreted is explained in the next section: practical implications.
4.2 Practical Implications
This study‟s findings lead to several practical implications. The results show that it is beneficial for managers to emphasize authentic leadership behaviors (balanced processing, internalized moral, relational transparency, and self awareness) to enhance employee
resilience and in turn organizational citizenship behaviors. A manager can improve his or her authenticity by showing authentic leadership behaviors such as saying exactly what he or she means, displaying emotions exactly in line with his or her feelings, and seeking feedback to improve interactions with others.
Furthermore, the study findings indicate the potential of developing employee resilience. Specifically, the findings suggest that leaders exhibiting authentic characteristics and behaviors may be instrumental in developing resilience. Thus, training programs aimed at enhancing resilience may be even further advanced by incorporating authentic leadership behaviors. Practically, those leadership behaviors may be simulated through the use of role plays that involve ambiguous situations. Through this behavior managers will enhance the resilience of their followers. To be more concrete, managers will increase followers‟
determination, self-discipline, and a follower‟s believe in his or her self. The findings further suggest that leadership training programs benefiting from incorporating dimensions that enhance resilience may in turn lead to improved organizational citizenship behaviors. The
24 latter implies behaviors such as helping others who have been absent, attending functions that are not required but that help the organizational image, and expressing loyalty toward the organization. Besides organizational citizenship behavior, enhancing resilience and self- efficacy of followers may also lead to other positive consequences. An employee may, by being more resilient, be more adapt to cope with changing organizations. In a time of economic crisis or economic growth, an organization may need to adapt and change in accordance. An employee who is more resilient, may better cope with these changing environments and therefore be more motivated and perform better. By having a higher self- efficacy an employee might not express more organizational citizenship behavior, but will be less affected by disappointments which can lead to drops in motivation. This in turn might again increase performance and well-being.
4.3 Limitations and future research
Like every study, this study has limitations. First, causality is an issue. As this study was merely correlational, causality cannot be inferred. This leaves the possibility of a third variable or causality in reverse direction as is proposed in theory. A possible third variable might be the organizational culture where ideas such as learning from mistakes, critical thinking, and open to change lie central in the organization. By stimulating critical thinking, a leader might get more critical comments and see the usefulness of it. The leader might then start stimulating critical thinking himself, thus making him more authentic. By learning from your mistakes and being open to changes, an individual may improve his or herself more and develop further. By developing and learning an individual might be more persistent in solving issues or dealing with problems, making him or her more resilient. The organization‟s way of dealing with mistakes and openness to critical comments, might also give an individual the feeling to be heard and to be important. This feeling in turn, might cause the follower to go
25 beyond their formal duty and thus express organizational citizenship behavior. Causality can better be explained through an experimental design. It would be better to randomly assign participants to three supervisor-subordinate conditions where the participants, acting as followers, have an authentic leader, a non-authentic leader, and a control situation where the participants are not being influenced by a leader at all. Participants in all three conditions should then be given assignments to complete while trained independent observers rate them on different aspects such as self-efficacy, resilience, and organizational citizenship behavior.
An experiment like this, might give causal conclusions.
Second, subconstructs of psychological capital are studied. However, this was not done for authentic leadership, identification with the supervisor, and organizational
citizenship behavior. This may explain why there was a weak fit in the confirmatory factor analysis when regarding authentic leadership and the four components of psychological capital as different factors. Therefore, these areas deserve more future research attention. In future research the four different aspects of for example authentic leadership may be
separately measured to test which aspect can claim the most explained variance and thus can be labeled the most important. Future research may focus on just the most important to simplify the model and further research authentic behaviors which are mostly contributing to desired follower‟s behaviors. This in turn, will lead to more concrete information for
practitioners to select and train leaders.
Future research may investigate if authentic leadership uniquely contributes to
organizational citizenship behavior beyond other forms of leadership such as transformational and ethical leadership. One way of doing this would be to include other type of leaderships as a control variable in order to contribute to construct validation. Controlling for well
established leadership theories (e.g. transformational leadership) helps to determine whether
26 the specific authentic leadership construct contributes added value to leadership research and practice (Walumbwa et al., 2011).
4.4 Conclusion
This study has focused on the relationship between authentic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. The findings suggest that this was a weak relationship but that resilience mediates this relationship. This insight opens opportunities to improve training programs to increase employee effectiveness within organizations. Future research should further examine how authentic leadership contributes to organizational citizenship behavior and other outcome variables.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author thanks Laetitia Mulder for her critical reviews and comments on every aspect of this paper. Thanks also to all the participants who were so kind to participate in the online survey.
27 REFERENCES
Ahern, N. R., Kiehl, E. M., Sole, M., & Byers, J. (2006). A Review of Instruments Measuring Resilience. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 29(2), 103-125.
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004).
Unlocking the mask: a look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801–823.
Baldwin, D. R., Jackson III, ,., Okoh, I., & Cannon, R. L. (2011). Resiliency and optimism: an African American senior citizen's perspective. Journal of Black Psychology, 37(1), 24- 41.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986) The moderator-mediator variable disctinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181–217.
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.
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087-1101.
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2005). "Can you see the real me?" A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development.
The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343–372.
28 Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic
well-being: Understanding leader-follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 373–
394.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance:
The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 131-142.
Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(6), 695.
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of Management, 33(3), 321-349.
Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing Role Breadth Self-Efficacy: The Roles of Job Enrichment and Other Organizational Interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 835- 852.
Peterson, C. (2000). The future of optimism. American Psychologist, 55(1), 44-55.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Critical Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature and Suggestions for Future Research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.
Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as „evidence-based management‟. Academy of Management Review, 31, 256–269.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 224-253.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4(3), 219-247.
29 Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader
behavior in military units: Subordinates' attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors' appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 387-409.
Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relational identity and identification: defining ourselves through work relationships. Academy of Management Review, 32, 9–32.
Smidts, A., Pruyn, A., & van Riel, C. B. M. (2001). The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of
Management Journal, 49, 1051–1062.
Sosik, J. J., & Cameron, J. C. (2010). Character and authentic transformational leadership behavior: Expanding the ascetic self toward others. Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice and Research, 62(4), 251-269.
Stadjkovic, A. D., Luthans, F., & Slocum Jr., J. W. (1998). Social Cognitive Theory and Self- Efficacy: Going Beyond Traditional Motivational and Behavioral Approaches.
Organizational Dynamics, 26(4), 62-74.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465.
van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004).
Leadership, self, and identity: a review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 825–856.
Wagnild, G. M., & Young, H. M. (1993). Development and psychometric evaluation of the Resilience Scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 1, 165–178.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008).
Authentic leadership: development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34, 89–126.
30 Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Oke, A. (2011). Authentically leading groups:
The mediating role of collective psychological capital and trust. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(1), 4-24.
Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K., & Christensen, A. L.
(2011). Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader–
member exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 204-213.
Walumbwa, F. O., Wang, P., Wang, H., Schaubroeck, J., & Avolio, B. J. (2010).
Psychological processes linking authentic leadership to follower behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(5), 901-914.
31 APPENDIX
TABLE 1
Descriptive statistics and correlations of authentic leadership, identification with the supervisor, the four components of psychological capital, and organizational citizenship behavior.
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Authentic Leadership 4.81 1.07 1 2. Identification with the
supervisor
4.55 1.29 .84** 1
3. Self Efficacy 3.67 0.58 .14* .12 1
4. Optimism 3.90 0.44 .08 .08 .30** 1
5. Hope 3.62 0.53 .11 .17* .55** .30** 1
6. Resilience 3.76 0.45 .22** .22* .53** .52** .64** 1 7. Organizational Citizenship
Behavior 3.58 0.44 .16* .16* .36** .34** .41** .54** 1
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).
32 TABLE 2
Direct, indirect, and total effects of authentic leadership and the mediators.
Variables Effect (β)
Authentic leadership effects
Total Direct Indirect Identification with the
supervisor
1.01** 1.01** n/a
Self-efficacy .08* .08* n/a
Optimism .03 .03 n/a
Hope .05 .05 n/a
Resilience .09** .09** n/a
Organizational citizenship behavior
.07* (.01) .06
Mediator effects
Identification with the supervisor
.01 .01 n/a
Self-efficacy .06 .06 n/a
Optimism .08 .08 n/a
Hope .07 .07 n/a
Resilience .39** .39** n/a
Indirect effects of authentic leadership through
Identification with the supervisor
n/a n/a .01
Self-efficacy n/a n/a .01
Optimism n/a n/a <.01
Hope n/a n/a <.01
Resilience n/a n/a .04**
Note: n/a is for not applicable.
*. Coefficient is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).
**. Coefficient is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).
33 Authentic Leadership Behavior Questionnaire (ALQ)
(adopted from Walumbwa et al. (2008)) Mijn leidinggevende:
1. Zegt wat hij of zij denkt.
2. Geeft het toe wanneer er fouten gemaakt zijn.
3. Spoort iedereen aan om voor zijn of haar mening uit te komen.
4. Vertelt mij de harde waarheid.
5. Toont emoties die precies overeenstemmen met gevoelens.
6. Toont overtuigingen die overeenstemmen met zijn/haar daden.
7. Neemt beslissingen op basis van zijn of haar kernwaarden.
8. Vraagt mij standpunten in te nemen die overeenstemmen met mijn kernwaarden.
9. Neemt moeilijke beslissingen op basis van hoogstaande ethische normen.
10. Vraagt om inzichten die een uitdaging vormen voor zijn of haar ideeën.
11. Analyseert relevante gegevens alvorens een beslissing te nemen.
12 Luistert aandachtig naar de verschillende standpunten alvorens conclusies te trekken.
13. Vraagt om feedback om interacties met anderen te verbeteren.
14. Beschrijft accuraat hoe anderen over zijn of haar bekwaamheden denken.
15. Weet wanneer het tijd is om zijn of haar standpunten opnieuw te bekijken.
16. Toont dat hij of zij weet hoe specifieke handelingen een impact op anderen kunnen hebben.
34 Identification with the supervisor
(adopted from Shamir et al. (1998) and translated to Dutch) 1. Ik heb het volste vertrouwen in hem of haar.
2. Ik heb respect voor hem of haar.
3. Ik ben trots om onder zijn of haar leiding te vallen.
4. Ik vertrouw zijn of haar oordeel en beslissingen volledig.
5. Hij of zij vertegenwoordigt waarden die belangrijk zijn voor mij.
6. Mijn waarden zijn vergelijkbaar met zijn of haar waarden.
7. Hij of zij is een rolmodel voor mij.
(Adopted from Walumba et al. (2011) and translated to Dutch) 1. Ik voel een sterke band met mijn leidinggevende.
2. Ik ervaar een sterk gevoel van verbondenheid met mijn leidinggevende.
3. Ik voel me trots om voor mijn leidinggevende te werken.
4. Ik word voldoende erkend in mijn werk.
5. Ik ben blij om lid te zijn van het team van mijn leidinggevende.
35 Psychological Capital
Self-efficacy
(Adopted from Parker (1998) and translated to Dutch)
1. Het analyseren van een lange-termijn probleem om een oplossing te vinden.
2. Het representeren van uw werkgebied in bijeenkomsten met het hoge management.
3. Het ontwerpen van nieuwe procedures voor uw werkgebied
4. Het doen van suggesties aan het management om de werking van uw afdeling te verbeteren.
5. Het bijdragen aan discussies over de bedrijfsstrategie.
6. Het schrijven van een voorstel om geld uit te geven in uw werkgebied.
7. Het helpen om doelen te stellen in uw werkgebied.
8. Het contact zoeken met mensen buiten het bedrijf (bijv. leveranciers, klanten) om problemen te bespreken.
9. Het presenteren van informatie aan een groep collega's.
10. Het bezoeken van collega‟s van andere afdelingen om suggesties aan te dragen dingen anders te doen.
(Adopted from Walumba et al. (2011) and translated to Dutch) 1. Ik heb vertrouwen in mijn vermogen om mijn werk te doen.
2. Ik ben zelfverzekerd over mijn capaciteiten om mijn werkzaamheden uit te voeren.
3. Ik beheers de vaardigheden die nodig zijn voor mijn werk.
36 Optimism
(Adopted from Scheier et al. (1985), removed filler-items, and translated to Dutch) 1. In onzekere tijden, verwacht ik meestal het beste.
2. Als er iets mis kan gaan voor mij, gaat het ook mis.
3. Ik kijk altijd naar de zonnige kant van dingen.
4. Ik ben altijd optimistisch over mijn toekomst.
5. Ik verwacht vrijwel nooit dat dingen gaan zoals ik wil.
6. Zaken gaan nooit zoals ik wil dat ze gaan.
7. Ik geloof in het idee van "achter de wolken schijnt de zon".
8. Ik reken er nooit op dat mij goede dingen overkomen.
Hope
(Adopted from Duckworth et al. (2007) and translated to Dutch)
1. Ik heb weleens een doel bereikt dat jaren werk in beslag heeft genomen.
2. Ik heb tegenslagen doorstaan om een belangrijke uitdaging te overwinnen.
3. Waar ik mee begin, maak ik af.
4. Tegenslagen ontmoedigen mij niet.
5. Ik ben een harde werker.
6. Ik ben ijverig.
37 Resilience
(Adopted from Wagnild et al. (1993) and translated to Dutch) 1. Op één of andere manier slaag ik meestal wel.
2. Ik voel me trots dat ik dingen in het leven volbreng.
3. Ik neem meestal grote stappen vooruit.
4. Ik ben vrienden met mezelf.
5. Ik heb het gevoel dat ik veel dingen tegelijkertijd aan kan.
6. Ik ben vastbesloten.
7. Ik kan in moeilijke tijden door, omdat ik daar ervaringen mee heb.
8. Ik heb zelfdiscipline.
9. Ik blijf geïnteresseerd in dingen.
10. Ik vind meestal wel iets om over te lachen.
11. Mijn geloof in mezelf helpt me door moeilijke tijden.
12. In geval van nood, ben ik iemand die mensen in het algemeen kunnen vertrouwen.
13. Mijn leven heeft betekenis.
14. Als ik in een moeilijke situatie verkeer, vind ik mijn weg er meestal wel uit.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
(Adopted from Lee & Allen (2002) and translated to Dutch) Organizational Citizenship Behavior Individual (OCBI) 1. Anderen helpen die afwezig zijn geweest.
2. Gewillig uw tijd besteden aan het helpen van anderen met werk-gerelateerde problemen.
3. Uw werkschema aanpassen het beter te laten afstemmen met verlofaanvragen van andere medewerkers.
38 4. Extra moeite vertonen om nieuwe medewerkers zich welkom te laten voelen in de
werkgroep.
5. Oprechte bezorgdheid en beleefdheid vertonen richting collega‟s, zelfs in de meest uitdagende zakelijke of persoonlijke situaties.
6. Tijd besteden aan het helpen van anderen met werk en niet-werk gerelateerde problemen.
7. Anderen helpen met hun taken.
8. Persoonlijke goederen delen met anderen om ze in hun werk te helpen.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior Organization (OCBO)
1. Functies vervullen die niet nodig zijn, maar het imago van de organisatie verbeteren.
2. Op de hoogte blijven van ontwikkelingen in de organisatie.
3. De organisatie verdedigen wanneer andere werknemers het bekritiseren.
4. Trots vertonen wanneer u de organisatie vertegenwoordigd in het openbaar.
5. Ideeën geven om het functioneren van de organisatie te verbeteren.
6. Loyaliteit vertonen naar de organisatie.
7. Actie ondernemen om de organisatie te beschermen tegen potentiële problemen.
8. Bezorgdheid vertonen over het imago van de organisatie.
