Leadership In Organization Research

( Benefit for study that take Business Research subject this semester.I just sharing the article that i analysis and try to find five important question need to be solve) 

Abstract

Authentic leadership occurs when individuals enact their true selves in their role as a leader. This article examines the role of authentic follower-ship in the previously established relationship between authentic leadership and follower in-role and extra role performance behaviors. Consideration of followers who enact their true selves is important to understand how authentic leadership fosters follower self-determined work motivation and thus work role performance. Using self-determination theory (SDT) as a guiding framework, the authors propose that authentic leadership, authentic followership, and their interplay are positively related to the satisfaction of followers’ basic needs, which, in turn, are positively related to follower work role performance. The authors conducted a survey study of 30 leaders and 252 followers in 25 Belgian service companies. The results provide evidence of positive relationship for both authentic leadership and authentic followership with follower basic need satisfaction in a cross level model where authentic leadership was aggregated to the group level of analysis. Cross level interaction results indicated that authentic leadership strengthened the relationship between authentic followership and follower basic need satisfaction. Follower basic need satisfaction was shown to mediate the relationship of authentic leadership and authentic followership with follower work role performance. A test of mediated moderation further demonstrated that basic need satisfaction mediates the interaction of authentic leadership and authentic followership on follower work role performance. The implications for leadership research and practice are explored.

1.      Provide a complete citation of the article (Title, authors, journal, volume, year and pages).

Tittle: Authentic Leadership, Authentic Followership, Basic Need Satisfaction, and Work Role Performance: A Cross-Level Study

Journal of Management published online 27 August 2012/ 22 pages

Author: Hannes Leroy KU Leuven, University of Calgary Frederik Anseel Ghent University William L. Gardner Texas Tech University Luc Sels KU Leuven

DOI: 10.1177/0149206312457822

2.      Summarize the major result.

We analyzed the data using the Mplus statistical package (Muthén & Muthén, 1998– 2012). First, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis on our measurement model. Next, because multilevel structural equation models are too parameter intensive for our data (Grizzle et al., 2009),1 we specified a multilevel path model to test the hypothesized structural relationships. This multilevel path model, however, had only one degree of freedom. Because the constraint of only one degree of freedom prevented a meaningful test of model fit, we excluded information on model fit. When excluding information on fit indices, the results of a multilevel path model are similar to those obtained through hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; Grizzle et al., 2009). To assess our hypothesized cross-level model, we followed the procedures described by Hoffmann (1997) and Hoffmann, Griffin, and Gavin (2000) and adopted by Walumbwa and colleagues (2010). Specifically, we first tested the main and mediating effects of authentic followership and authentic leadership on basic need satisfaction. In HLM terminology, this consists of an intercept as outcome model. The mediating effects were established by testing alternative models that specify a direct link among authentic leadership, authentic followership, and follower work role performance (James, Mulaik, & Brett, 2006; Preacher, Zhang, & Zyphur, 2011). These alternative models indicate whether a residual direct effect remains after already including basic need satisfaction in the model. Next, we examined cross-level interaction effects by testing whether authentic leadership moderates the relationship between authentic followership and basic need satisfaction at the group level of analysis. This consists of an intercept and slope as outcome model. We added between-group interactions to control for spurious cross-level interaction effects (Hoffmann, 1997; Hoffmann & Gavin, 1998). To assess Hypothesis 5, we tested whether basic need satisfaction mediates the interaction effect of authentic leadership and authentic followership on follower work role performance. This consists of a test of mediated moderation (Muller, Descartes, Judd, & Yzerbyt, 2005). We followed the procedures recommended by Bauer, Preacher, and Gil (2006) to assess the degree to which the indirect effect of authentic followership on follower work role performance (via basic need satisfaction) differs for low and high levels of authentic leadership. Finally, because the teams in our data set are further nested within organizations, we accounted for nonindependence in our data at the organizational level by including the “type = COMPLEX” command in Mplus. This command corrects standard errors and the chi-square test of model fit for nonindependence of observations (Satorra, 2000).

3.      What does the author say is the major contribution of the study?

Our findings suggest several avenues for future investigations. First, research that examines how authentic leadership and authentic followership are influenced by the overall climate and culture of the organization would be beneficial. Prior theoretical and empirical work suggests that authentic leadership supports and is supported by a positive, ethical, and inclusive work climate or culture (Gardner et al., 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008). On one hand, we expect authentic leadership and authentic followership to play key roles in helping to create and maintain a more authentic organizational culture and climate. On the other hand, we expect that a more authentic organizational climate and culture may strengthen the effects of authentic leadership and authentic followership on work-related outcomes. Hence, future research is needed to examine the complex interplay between these arenas for authenticity. Second, more research is needed to clarify how the variables included in our study relate to follower feelings of work engagement. Walumbwa and associates (2010) demonstrated that authentic leadership fosters work engagement through follower empowerment and identification. This raises the question of how authentic followership and follower basic need satisfaction relate to follower work engagement. Previous work suggests that work engagement (a) arises from the authentic expression of the self at work (Kahn, 1990), (b) is driven by leader behaviors that create a trusting and psychologically safe environment (May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004), and (c) is an important driver of follower job performance (Rich, LePine, & Crawford, 2010). In studying these relationships, future research should also explore how authentic followership and follower basic need satisfaction account for variance in work engagement over and above that attributable to follower feelings of identification with the leader and follower feelings of empowerment (Walumbwa et al., 2010). Third, SDT posits that the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are fundamental in that every human being benefits from their satisfaction (Deci & Ryan, 2000). This does not imply that SDT assumes that individual differences in the strength of these needs do not exist, however. For example, Schüler, Sheldon, and Fröhlich (2010) demonstrated that an implicit measure of the need for achievement moderates the relationship between the satisfaction of the need for competence and subsequent motivation to engage in sports activities. Future research that examines the degree to which implicit needs (such as the need for affiliation) positively moderate the relationships between the satisfaction of basic needs (such as the need for relatedness) and work role performance would be beneficial. Fourth, additional research that extends our results by exploring the antecedents of authentic functioning of leaders and followers is needed. SDT suggests that an environment that does not support self-determination may frustrate followers’ basic needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Continued need frustration may make an individual’s self-esteem more fragile and thereby contribute to more ego-defensive and less authentic behaviors (Kernis & Goldman, 2006). Future studies could explore how key role models (e.g., parents, teachers, siblings) foster fragile versus secure self-esteem at early stages in one’s development (Hannah & Avolio, 2010). This does not mean that individuals are unable to develop more secure selfesteem at a later stage in life (e.g., in the workplace). In this regard, SDT has argued that mindfulness may serve as a foundation of authentic functioning (Kernis & Goldman, 2006). By maintaining a receptive attention to and awareness of experiences in the present moment, mindful persons are more likely to be open and nondefensive (Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Lakey et al., 2008). Hence, another promising avenue for future research would be to examine the utility of mindfulness training as a tool for enhancing authentic functioning and the processes whereby it operates.

4.      What are the major theories that it examines (be sure to briefly explain the theory)?

Discussion

 This study set out to investigate how authentic followership and follower basic need satisfaction can enhance our understanding of previous research into the relationshipbetween authentic leadership and follower performance (Hmieleski et al., 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2008; Walumbwa et al., 2010; Walumbwa et al., 2011). Using SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagné & Deci, 2005) as a guiding framework, we sought to examine previously underexplored mechanisms to shed new light on the unique relationships of authentic leadership with follower processes and performance, beyond the role of other positive leadership considerations (e.g., leader–member social exchange). Overall, we found support for our hypothesized model. First, we found evidence for a positive relationship between authentic followership and follower basic need satisfaction (Hypothesis 1). This result provides support for the idea that the authentic functioning of followers is related to basic need satisfaction (Ilies et al., 2005; Kernis & Goldman, 2006): Followers who show their true selves in the workplace are more likely to feel that their work-related behavior resonates with who they are. Second, we found a positive relationship between authentic leadership and follower basic need satisfaction (Hypothesis 2). Leaders who are less likely to engage in ego-defensive behaviors and instead put their true self into play are more likely to satisfy follower basic needs. Thus, our findings provide initial support for the idea that authentic leadership also makes it more likely that followers come to feel that they are the author of their work-related behavior through the satisfaction of their basic needs (Gardner et al., 2005; Ilies et al., 2005). Third, we found that the interaction between authentic leadership and authentic followership is positively related to follower basic need satisfaction (Hypothesis 3). Specifically, authentic behavior on the part of followers is more likely to be positively related to basic need satisfaction when those behaviors are supported by authentic leader behaviors. This interaction was shown to be synergistic, in that the combination of authentic leadership and authentic followership is associated with higher levels of basic need satisfaction. Finally, we found that basic need satisfaction mediates the positive relationships of authentic followership (Hypothesis 4) and authentic leadership (Hypothesis 5), and their interaction (Hypothesis 6), with follower work role performance. This finding confirms that the satisfaction of these needs promotes motivation that is rooted within a core and stable sense of self. Hence, basic need satisfaction helps us understand how and why authentic followership and authentic leadership are related to performance behaviors that are important in an unstable work environment (Griffin et al., 2007). Overall these findings provide several contributions to the study of authentic leadership. By explicating the role of authentic followership within authentic leadership, it helps to better explain how authentic leadership fosters follower autonomous work motivation and associated improvements in work role performance (Gardner et al., 2005; Ilies et al., 2005). By drawing extensively from SDT, we have advanced a new perspective on authentic leadership that clarifies how authentic leadership and authentic followership combine to coproduce follower motivation and behavior (Shamir, 2007). That is, such outcomes are shown to be a function not only of the leader, but equally of the person(s) being led (Avolio, 2007; Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009; Lord, Brown, & Freiberg, 1999). The current findings also clarify the position of authentic leadership vis-à-vis other theories of positive leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). While previous research has shown that authentic leadership accounts for incremental variance in outcomes beyond ethical and transformational leadership (Hannah et al., 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2008; Walumbwa et al., 2011), it has remained silent regarding the unique processes through which authentic leadership influences follower performance. For example, the mechanisms of follower empowerment and identification with the leader that Walumbwa and colleagues (2010) have shown to be operative for authentic leadership are similar to those that are manifest within transformational leadership (Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003). However, whereas transformational leadership is argued to “transform followers into leaders,” authentic leadership is posited to create a context within which “followers can be true to the self.” By focusing on authentic followership per se, this study provides initial insights into the unique processes whereby authentic leadership relates to follower outcomes. However, additional research is needed to further clarify these effects and contrast authentic leadership with other forms of positive leadership.

5.      What is the research methodology (sample size, independent variables, dependent variables and how they were measured)?

Participants and Procedure

We collected data in 25 Belgian organizations within service industries. Participating companies were small- to medium-sized firms. Within the chosen organizations, our sampling design further focused on selecting followers and leaders from established teams. We considered a team to be composed of one team leader and a minimum of four team members who reported directly to the leader. Human resource representatives provided the e-mail addresses of 345 followers and 49 team leaders to the researchers and informed the team leaders and team members about the study. We contacted respondents through e-mail, asked them to complete a web-based survey, and followed up with a reminder after two weeks. To enable us to match the data of followers with that of their leaders, respondents were sent unique Internet addresses that were linked to their e-mail addresses. Respondents were informed of this procedure but assured that, because only aggregated results would be reported back to the organizations, it would not be possible to identify data provided by individual respondents. We administered the survey in two stages (Mitchell & James, 2001). At Stage 1, a total of 252 (73%) followers completed the survey. At Stage 2, one month later, team leaders were asked to rate the performance of followers during the past month. Participating companies asked us to restrict leader-rated performance to four randomly selected team members to avoid placing excessive work demands on the selected leaders. After sending reminders, completed survey data were obtained from a total of 30 team leaders (61%). The total number of team members for whom leader performance ratings were provided was 118. The average number of years that our sample of leaders had served as the leader of their team was 5.50 years (SD = 5.31). Of the leaders, 70% held graduate degrees, 60% were men, and their mean age was 40 years (SD = 7.99). On average, the organizational tenure of our sample of team members was 9.95 years (SD = 8.93) and their mean age was 36.26 years (SD = 9.34). Of the followers, 37% held graduate degrees and 70% were women. To assess the potential effects of nonresponse bias, we tested for differences between the study variables for followers whose leaders did and did not participate at Stage 2. No significant (p > .05) differences were obtained.

 Measures

Authentic leadership. We used the 16-item Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) developed and validated by Walumbwa and colleagues (2008) to measure authentic leadership. Followers were asked to rate the frequency of authentic leadership behaviors exhibited by the leader on a 5-point Likert-type scale, using anchors ranging from never to almost always. Sample items include “Seeks feedback to improve interactions with others” (self-awareness), “Solicits views that challenge his or her deeply held positions” (balanced processing), “Says exactly what he or she means” (relational transparency), and “Demonstrates beliefs that are consistent with actions” (internalized moral perspective). The Cronbach’s alpha for the ALQ obtained in our study was .95. Because our interest lies in authentic leadership behaviors as they are displayed to different work teams, we averaged this measure within work groups. In support of our aggregation decision (Bliese, 2000), we obtained an average rwg of .82 (Mdn = .82, range = .70–.86), using a uniform null distribution, an ICC(1) of .28, and an ICC(2) of .67. Finally, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated a significant amount of between-group variance: F(48, 203) = 3.01, p < .01. Authentic followership. We measured authentic followership using 16 items from a self report Authenticity Inventory developed by Kernis and Goldman (2006) that we adapted to reflect the dimensional structure identified by Walumbwa et al. (2008). The 16 items appear in the appendix. In the present study, we asked followers to rate themselves on these items using a 5-point Likert-type scale with anchors ranging from completely agree to completely disagree. We obtained an internal reliability estimate (coefficient alpha) for this scale of .85. Basic need satisfaction. Deci and colleagues (2001) developed and validated a 21-item self-report instrument that measures needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Followers rated these items on a 7-point Likert-type scale using anchors ranging from completely agree to completely disagree. Sample items for each of the basic needs include “I am free to express my ideas and opinions on the job” (autonomy), “People at work care about me” (relatedness), and “I do not feel very competent when I am at work” (competence; reverse scored). We obtained an internal reliability estimate (coefficient alpha) for this scale of .92 Work role performance. Griffin and associates (2007) developed and validated a measure of individual work role performance that operationalizes different aspects of work behavior (proficient, adaptive, and proactive) at different levels (individual, team, and organization). For the current study, our interest lies in the manifestation of these three behaviors at the individual level. We included 9 items measuring the sub dimensions of proficiency (“Carried out the core parts of the job well”), adaptively (“Adapted well to changes in core tasks”), and proactivity (“Initiated better ways of doing core tasks”). Leaders rated the frequency of these follower behaviors on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with anchors ranging from never to almost always. The Cronbach’s alpha obtained as a measure of internal consistency for this scale was .86. Control variables. In this study, we controlled for leader–member social exchange. We did so to rule out the alternative explanation that the posited positive relationship between authentic leadership and authentic followership (Hypothesis 3) can be attributed to a more general positive social exchange between leaders and followers. Followers rated seven leader–member social exchange items (Bernerth, Armenakis, Field, Giles, & Walker, 2007) on a 7-point Likert-type scale using anchors ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. We obtained an internal reliability estimate (coefficient alpha) for this scale of .91. In addition, we controlled for the following demographic variables that may affect the relationship between leaders and followers: overall team size, tenure as a leader, and tenure as team leader. We included these control variables and leader–member social exchange in the model by creating paths between them and the variables we thought they were most likely to influence. We found that the addition of these controls did not meaningfully change our results. Therefore, following the recommendations of Becker (2005), we omitted these variables from subsequent analyses.

6.      What are the research question / hypotheses?

·         Hypothesis 1: Authentic followership is positively related to basic need satisfaction.

·         Hypothesis 2: Authentic leadership is positively related to basic need satisfaction.

·         Hypothesis 3: Authentic leadership strengthens the relationship between authentic followership and basic need satisfaction

·         Hypothesis 4: Basic need satisfaction mediates the positive relationship of authentic followership with follower work role performance.

·         Hypothesis 5: Basic need satisfaction mediates the positive relationship of authentic leadership with follower work role performance.

·         Hypothesis 6: Authentic leadership moderates the indirect effect of authentic followership on follower work role performance via follower basic need satisfaction.