This study compares three emerging forms of positive leadership that emphasize ethical and moral behavior (i.e., authentic leadership, ethical leadership, and servant leadership) with ...transformational leadership in their associations with a wide range of organizationally relevant measures. While scholars have noted conceptual overlap between transformational leadership and these newer leadership forms, there has been inadequate investigation of the empirical relationships with transformational leadership and the ability (or lack thereof) of these leadership forms to explain incremental variance beyond transformational leadership. In response, we conducted a series of meta-analyses to provide a comprehensive assessment of these emerging leadership forms’ relationships with variables evaluated in the extant literature. Second, we tested the relative performance of each of these leadership forms in explaining incremental variance, beyond transformational leadership, in nine outcomes. We also provide relative weights analyses to further evaluate the relative contributions of the emerging leadership forms versus transformational leadership. The high correlations between both authentic leadership and ethical leadership with transformational leadership coupled with their low amounts of incremental variance suggest that their utility is low unless they are being used to explore very specific outcomes. Servant leadership, however, showed more promise as a stand-alone leadership approach that is capable of helping leadership researchers and practitioners better explain a wide range of outcomes. Guidance regarding future research and the utility of these three ethical/moral values–based leadership forms is provided.
This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy).
This article has been retracted at the request of the Senior ...Editor.
After concerns were raised about possible problems of reporting in this paper, the Senior Editor consulted with the two previous Senior Editors of The Leadership Quarterly and a methodologist (M1) (not the claimant) to assess the seriousness of the allegations and to make a preliminary determination concerning the allegations’ merits. All concurred that there were serious problems in this paper. The methodologist (M1) prepared a report outlining the problems and this report was forwarded to a second methodologist (M2) to confirm the correctness of methods used by the first methodologist to detect the problems. The second methodologist attested to the correctness of the first methodologist's analyses. The Senior Editor then contacted the authors to inform them of the problems identified in the paper. The authors were asked to respond to concerns raised and encouraged to send the original data from this paper to the Senior Editor for reanalysis.
The authors did not provide the original data, but rather sent a letter replying to the methodology report, along with new analytic results. These new results were reviewed by a third methodologist (M3) as well as the methodologist who prepared the report (M1). Both agreed that the reanalysis failed to replicate the results that were originally reported and further supported concerns about poor model fits, serious reporting errors, model misspecifications, and methodological misstatements in the published article.
The Senior Editor has concluded that the published paper included misreported findings with respect to model fit statistics, as well as a problem in that the model as stated in the published paper was not tested. This compromised the scientific review process. More specifically, the paper reported on page 906, that a higher-order model consisting of four factors had a better fit to the data than did a first-order model, which is not possible. In addition, on the basis of what would be expected given the information reported in the paper, the dfs reported for the higher-order and first-order models were incorrect and the chi-square of the higher-order model (i.e., 201.76) was reported to be lower than that of the first-order model (i.e., 259.67), which is not possible because the higher-order model employs more constraints, thus has more dfs and necessarily a higher discrepancy (chi-square) statistic. Moreover, the RMSEA of the higher-order model was reported to be .05 in the paper; based on the information reported in the published paper, it should have been .09 (thus, this result made the higher-order model look better than originally reported). The RMSEA of the first order model was reported to be .07, though it should have been .11 (also making this model look better than conveyed); according to the authors’ response, the discrepancies with respect to the RMSEAs are due to the fact that the authors had “erred by entering a textual error and that the analysis was actually done at the individual level (N = 387).” Yet, in the article they had expressly noted that they did the CFAs using “group-level data because we conceptualized authentic leadership as a group-level construct in our analysis” (p. 906). Irregularities can be seen on page 908; specifically there are several incorrectly reported fit statistics that make the alternative models look worse than actual. For example, for the first reported alternative model (having a χ2 of 6051.29), the approximate fit indexes were reported to be: TLI = .70, CFI = .71, and RMSEA = 09. Based on the information reported in the paper, these fit statistics should have been TLI = .91, CFI = .95, and RMSEA = .06. With respect to these irregular results, the authors responded that they may have switched from using a group level analysis to an individual level analysis prior to submitting the paper, which would have impacted how the RMSEA was reported for the alternative models. The authors, though, had to speculate as to whether this was the explanation. Additionally, they stated that they erred in reporting the CFI and TLI of the target model (note, what should have been reported for the CFIs and TLIs for the alternative models can be reconstructed using information from the target model, whose reported results have been acknowledged by the authors to have been incorrect). As for the discrepancies in the degrees of freedom for comparing the higher- and first-order models, the authors also acknowledged correlating disturbances in their models; also, that the df differences between the higher-order and first-order model was 1 instead of 2 because the authors stated that they “had inadvertently estimated 1 additional parameter (a random error covariance) in the higher order model.” The use of correlated disturbances was not specifically mentioned in the article making it impossible for other researchers to follow what they did or to replicate their findings. The practice of correlating disturbance terms of measurement items, on the basis of modification indexes as disclosed by the authors, capitalizes on chance, increases model fit statistics, and can compromise model estimates (cf. Brown, 2006; Gerbing & Anderson, 1984; Maccallum, Roznowski & Necowitz, 1992; Steiger, 1990). Furthermore, the authors were unable to reproduce their own results in part stating that they had not maintained records of which disturbance terms were correlated (e.g., in the case of alternative models, where they reported in their response that 19 disturbances had been correlated). Additionally, many of the models re-estimated showed inadmissible solutions in the statistical output submitted in their response (e.g., negative error variances or non-positive definite covariance matrixes). Inadmissible solutions can be indicative of model misspecification. Finally, models were estimated at the individual level, without declaring this fact in the review process, which could substantially bias estimates and model fit statistics (i.e., they did not use a cluster or “sandwich” correction for the chi-square statistic, on which all fit statistics depend, nor did they correct standard errors of the estimates for clustering, cf. Muthén & Satorra, 1995).
As a consequence of the processes and concerns outlined above, the scientific trustworthiness and value of this work cannot be established. However, intentional wrongdoing should not be inferred.
References:Brown, T. A. 2006. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press. http://www.guilford.com/books/Confirmatory-Factor-Analysis-for-Applied-Research/Timothy-A-Brown/9781462515363Gerbing, D. W. & Anderson, J. C. 1984. On the meaning of within-factor correlated measurement errors. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(1): 572-580. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489144Maccallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., & Necowitz, L. B. 1992. Model modification in covariance structure-analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological Bulletin, 111(3), 490-504. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.111.3.490Muthén, B. & Satorra, A. 1995. Complex sample data in structural equation modeling. In P. V. Marsden (Ed.), Sociological Methodology: 267-316. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.Steiger, J. H. 1990. Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25: 173-180. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4
This paper presents the development and preliminary validation of a new measure of authentic leadership, the Authentic Leadership Inventory (ALI). It also assesses the recently developed Authentic ...Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ). Results indicate some concerns with the ALQ but support the content validity, reliability, factor structure, convergent and discriminant validity, concurrent validity, and freedom from impression management response bias of the ALI. Confirmatory factor analyses also do not support treating authentic or transformational leadership as universally global constructs. Instead, it is argued that future research would better be served by using separate authentic and transformational dimensions (rather than aggregate or global measures) to understand the unique aspects of both leadership constructs.
•Top manager authentic leadership indirectly affects team voice.•Top manager authentic leadership relates to middle manager authentic leadership.•Middle manager authentic leadership relates to team ...voice.•Middle manager power distance orientation moderates the indirect effect.
Extant research has primarily investigated the influence of middle managers on team voice. Extending this line of research, our work goes beyond the impact of middle managers by examining the role of top manager authentic leadership. Integrating social learning theory with authentic leadership theory, we argue that top manager authentic leadership indirectly affects team voice through middle manager authentic leadership. Furthermore, we investigate the moderating effect of middle manager power distance orientation on the mediation process. Results based on a two-wave, multiple-source, team-based field study support the cascading influence of top manager authentic leadership on team voice through middle manager authentic leadership. Middle manager power distance orientation enhances the relationship between top manager authentic leadership and middle manager authentic leadership, thereby strengthening the indirect effect of top manager authentic leadership on team voice through middle manager authentic leadership.
The critiques of Authentic Leadership Theory (ALT) require us to reconsider the concept of authenticity in leadership. Through semi-structured interviews with 14 female entrepreneurs in the United ...Kingdom (UK), this study sought to establish whether the concept of authenticity in leadership has practical applicability for female entrepreneurs. Support was found for the strongest critiques of ALT, and a consensus was identified among the participants that being authentic in leadership is a balancing act between the values of the individual and the values of (and duties to) the organisation and its members. The study also found that, as entrepreneurs, the participants did not experience the challenges of being authentic leaders that extant literature has shown females in other roles to be experiencing. The findings lead to the proposition that the concept of ALT is abandoned and replaced by a more fluid understanding that acknowledges the complexities and subjectivities associated with the notions of ‘leading with authenticity’.
•Both organizational and intrapersonal resources appear to play a protective role against early career burnout development over time.•Authentic leadership and psychological capital appear to protect ...new nurses from negative early career work experiences.•Burnout was significantly related to poor mental health and job dissatisfaction.•The results strengthen previous findings in cross-sectional studies.•Efforts to develop authentic leadership skills and build psychological capital to prevent early career burnout seem warranted.
The detrimental effects of burnout on nurses’ health and wellbeing are well documented and positive leadership has been shown to be an important organizational resource for discouraging the development of burnout. Intrapersonal resources also play a protective role against workplace stressors. This study investigated the influence of authentic leadership, an organizational resource, and psychological capital, an intrapersonal resource, on new graduate burnout, occupational satisfaction, and workplace mental health over the first year of employment (n=205). Results supported the protective role of organizational and intrapersonal resources against burnout, job dissatisfaction, and mental health.
Scholarly and practitioner interest in the topic of authentic leadership has grown dramatically over the past two decades. Running parallel to this interest, however, have been a number of concerns ...regarding the conceptual and methodological underpinnings for research on the construct. In this exchange of letters, the cases for and against the current authentic leadership theory are made. Through a dialogue, several areas of common ground are identified, as well as focal areas where the cases for and against the utility of authentic leadership theory for scholars and practitioners sharply diverge. Suggestions for future theorizing and research that reflect areas of common ground are advanced, along with divergent perspectives on how research on authenticity and leadership should proceed. Despite their differences, both author teams found the dialogue in itself to be a healthy process for theory development and encourage constructive future dialogue on other areas where theoretical perspectives diverge.
The issue of authentic leadership has been generating increased interest in both practical and academic domains. This study examines the influence of authentic leadership on employee trust and ...employee work engagement from the dyadic supervisor-employee viewpoint. The sample data consists of responses from 77 team supervisors and 345 employees in 36 companies. We utilize hierarchical linear modeling to test the hypotheses. The cross-level results show that employee trust fully mediates supervisor-perceived authentic leadership and employee work engagement, and that employee-perceived authentic leadership fully mediates the relationship between supervisor-perceived authentic leadership and employee trust, as well as the relationship between supervisor-perceived authentic leadership and employee work engagement. On the individual level, employee trust has a partial mediating effect on the relationship between employee-perceived authentic leadership and employee work engagement.
Scholars and practitioners alike have recognized that younger workers, collectively known as Millennials or GenMe, are different from workers in prior generations. Employees of this generation hold ...different expectations regarding the centrality of work to their lives and bring different personalities and attitudes to the workforce. As the number of Millennials in the workforce grows each year, the divide between them and their older counterparts becomes more salient, posing unique challenges for organizational leaders. In this paper, we explore how these changes may force the need for reconsideration of five of the most frequently used leadership theories in an effort to understand important boundary conditions and how leadership research must evolve to keep pace with a changing workforce.
PDF
