The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

LODJ
34,2
Authentic leadership and implicit
theory: a normative form of
leadership?
182 Thomas W. Nichols and Rod Erakovich
School of Business Administration, Texas Wesleyan University,
Fort Worth, Texas, USA

Abstract
Purpose – This empirical study aims to consider the stability and connection of implicit
leadership theories to authentic leadership using performance feedback as a first step in a larger
research agenda.
Design/methodology/approach – Scenarios were created to operationalize implicit and authentic
leadership, manipulate implicit leadership theory between followers and leaders, and discover
perceptions of leader effectiveness. The use of scenarios was purposely intended to create anticipatory
future research agendas.
Findings – Components of authentic leadership may be a part of implicit leadership theory and
leadership performance feedback may alter leader and follower implicit leadership theories.
Research limitations/implications – Data collected in this study were from students’ perceptions,
and did not infer causality between constructs. This study is also subject to mono-operation and mono-
method bias.
Originality/value – This research provides an extension of theory in several ways: by looking at the
authentic leadership paradigm; and by viewing perceptions of leader authentic effectiveness as a
continuous influence on implicit leadership theories.
Keywords Authentic leadership, Transformational leadership, Implicit leadership theory,
Leader effectiveness, Management effectiveness
Paper type Research paper

Literature review
Ethics are a basic component of authentic leadership and frame follower feedback.
Ethical leadership is defined by Brown et al. (2005) as the demonstration of
normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal
relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way
communication, reinforcement, and decision making. We have seen the damage done
by unethical leaders in recent scandals by business leaders that have dominated the
news in recent years (e.g. Kenneth Lay and Enron, Joseph Nacchio and Qwest
Communication, and Arthur Anderson). Ethics are an integral part of leadership that
cannot be ignored.
As a result, this study asserts that followers are not satisfied with leaders that are
not authentic. Ethicality is no longer something nice to have in a leader, but a necessity.
It is the authentic leader that influences follower implicit leadership perceptions.
Implicit theories are cognitive frameworks or categorization systems that people
Leadership & Organization use during information processing to encode, process, and recall specific events and
Development Journal behavior (Shaw, 1990). People have their own unique thoughts as to the nature of
Vol. 34 No. 2, 2013
pp. 182-195 leaders and leadership. A person’s implicit leadership theory (ILT) is based on beliefs
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0143-7739
on how leaders generally behave and what is expected of them (Eden and Leviathan,
DOI 10.1108/01437731311321931 1975) that suggests individuals are labeled as leaders or non-leaders based on cognitive
categories (Lord et al., 1986; Calder, 1977). Essentially, ILT represent ideal instances of Authentic
leadership (Lord et al., 1986). leadership
Perceptions of effective leadership can be based on two alternative processes (Lord
and Maher, 1991). First, an inference-based perceptual process can be used to garner and theory
conclusions about leadership from observed, relevant events, and outcomes; leadership
is inferred from outcomes of salient events. These processes rely upon attribution, such
as a successful business turnaround being attributed to the top management team or 183
CEO (Hartog et al., 1999). Second, recognition-based perceptual processes rely on
the degree of fit between observed leader behavior and a person’s implicit theory
of what a leader is or should be. When there is a fit between observed behavior
and one’s personal theory of leadership, the individual exhibiting the behavior is
recognized as a good leader.
To what extent do implicit follower and leader implicit theories influence the
perception of effective leadership? The use of ILT as a guide for understanding and
interpreting leader behavior and the consideration that authentic leadership behaviors
may be an ideal form of leadership are the focus of this study as the basis for creating
an appropriate research agenda for future consideration.
Since its inception as a perceived paradigm, the literature works to connect
authentic leadership to specific disciplines and forms such as public and military
leadership. Avolio et al. (2004) conceive of authentic leaders as people who have
realized elevated degrees of authenticity in that they know themselves, what they
value and believe, and they operate based upon those beliefs and values while visibly
and clearly interacting with others. Furthermore, they are perceived by others as
understanding their own and others’ values and moral perspectives, strengths, and
knowledge. They are cognizant of their environment and clearly picture the framework
in which they lead. May et al. (2003) argue that authentic leaders are those who are able
to integrate their ethical behavior fully into both their personal and organizational
lives, creating an ethical climate that focusses on the employees and the stakeholders
and recognizing their inherent worth. This framework of authentic leadership marks
the theory as developmental in nature as well as holistic in that it covers a vast range of
leadership perspectives, including transformational leadership.
Authentic leaders use the behaviors of idealized influence, inspirational motivation,
intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration in an ethical manner and
influence the perception of follower. In order to more clearly define an authentic leader,
a comparison of the way each type of leader (authentic and inauthentic) demonstrates
each of the specific dimensions is presented in the following paragraphs.
Inauthentic leaders are deceptive and manipulative. They display many of the
qualities of an ethical leader, though actually seek power and position at the expense of
their followers. They appear authentic, though are false to the organization’s mission,
their hidden purposes self-aggrandizing. Whereas authentic leaders have vision with a
sense of responsibility to the organization and followers to the point of self-sacrifice
(in an altruistic sense), inauthentic leaders have vision but cannot be trusted and
are willing to sacrifice followers for their own purposes. In using their charisma, or
idealized influence, these leaders seek to be idolized rather than idealized (Bass and
Steidlmeier, 1999).
Inauthentic leaders want to seem to motivate through empowerment, though
actually seek to control (Conger and Kanungo, 1998). Empowerment should be
uplifting and focussed on the good of the follower; inauthentic leaders focus on
conspiracy, illusory risk, excuses, and anxieties (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999). They are
LODJ pre-disposed to self-serving biases and are known to be deceptive, domineering,
34,2 and egotistical with an inflated and positive public image, an image they may indeed
be idolized for, though they are privately serving only their own interests. While
their motivation seems inspirational, it is, in fact, false without concern for the
organization or followers. Their motivation is to enhance their image while serving
their own needs. To unknowing followers, deceptive leaders will motivate them
184 to do what they think is best for the organization, when the leader is truthfully the only
one who benefits.
Authentic leaders intellectually stimulate their followers in a dynamic interaction
that encourages questions, debate, and the attempt to formulate creative solutions to
problems. Inauthentic leaders prey on the unawareness of their followers so their
followers will more willingly accept a vague picture of the leader concerning their
morality and true intentions. This acceptance, gained through the promotion of
ambiguity and inconsistency, provides opportunities for the self-enhancement of
pretenders (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999). Authentic leaders use hard evidence and base
discussion on the merits of the issues, whereas inauthentic leaders use false logic and
depend on authority to make their arguments. Instead of rational debate, inauthentic
leaders depend on emotional argumentation. The inauthentic leader uses a veneer to
hide his/her true intentions. What looks like intellectual stimulation is nothing
more than the leader sounding intelligent to confuse followers into doing what the
leader wants.
Individualized consideration is dependent on altruism to differentiate leadership
from authoritarian control (Kanungo and Mendonca, 1996). Inauthentic leaders
concentrate on the maintenance of follower dependence, while authentic leaders act as
mentors and coaches to develop their followers into leaders. Inauthentic leaders
encourage personal distance, invite blind obedience, encourage favoritism and
competition, and exploit feelings of followers to maintain deference (Sankowsky, 1995).
While both authentic and inauthentic leaders may have a need for power, the authentic
leader will convert this need into attainable goals for the good of the organization and
the follower. The inauthentic leader works only to increase that power while looking
condescendingly on his/her followers and pretending to be helpful.
In sum, leaders who are not truly authentic may also transform and motivate their
followers. Such leaders, however, do so for their special interests at others’ expense, not
focussing on what is good for the whole. They promote fantasy and rationalization in
place of achievement. They encourage a type of unhealthy competitiveness, an “us vs
them” attitude that serves the leader’s self-interests. They generate envy and hate
instead of harmony and cooperation. Perhaps most importantly, Bass (1998) points out
that this discussion is about two ideal types, and that most leaders fall somewhere
in between. The simple difference between an authentic and an inauthentic leader
comes down to ethics.
The concept of an ideal leader lies individually within each person, represented
in his or her ILT, and each person’s implicit theory of leadership will differ for any
number of reasons. A person’s ILT is based on beliefs on how leaders generally behave
and what is expected of them (Eden and Leviathan, 1975) and suggests individuals
are labeled as leaders or non-leaders based on cognitive categories (Lord et al., 1986;
Calder, 1977). Essentially, ILT represent ideal instances of leadership (Lord et al., 1986).
These implicit theories come from many sources, including personality (Hunt et al.,
1990; Keller, 1999), demographic similarity (Mehra et al., 1998), and the institution itself
(Knights and Willmott, 1992). Leader effectiveness, as perceived by either leader or
follower, also assists in forming ILT, but does so differently than the other antecedents. Authentic
Continued perceptions of situations where leaders are viewed as effective or ineffective leadership
may constantly reinforce or alter the contents of ILT, whereas the other antecedents are
more likely to be stable over time. and theory
Perceptions of leader effectiveness have many positive outcomes including trust
(Robinson, 1996), organizational commitment (Conger, 1999), satisfaction (George and
Jones, 1997), performance (Howell and Avolio, 1993), and organizational citizenship 185
behaviors (Gardner and Schermerhorn, 2004). Furthermore, perceptions of leader
effectiveness are an important element in the maintenance of ILT through continual
reinforcement by the leader.

Hypotheses
While considerable literature and empirical knowledge focusses on the necessity of
authentic leadership, the influence of followers, and perceptions of effective leadership,
the connection between these constructs has not been made. The focus of this study,
as shown in Figure 1, argues that while follower implicit leadership perceptions
do create what is seen as effective leadership, it does not alter the influencing function
of authentic leadership.
Moreover, follower ILT are influenced by perceptions of effective leadership as
understood by the leader. Therefore, we hypothesize:

H1. Feedback on leader effectiveness is perceived to influence the content of

follower ILT. When followers receive information that their leaders are
effective, they include those behaviors into their ILT.

H1a. Feedback on leader effectiveness is perceived to influence the content of leader

ILT. When leaders receive feedback that their current behaviors are effective,
the content of their ILT is reinforced.

Leadership prototypes (Lord and Maher, 1991) are identified as a result of

categorization, which occurs in a process using cognitive categories. In leadership

Follower implicit
leadership theory

H1
H2
Other
leader
behaviors

Leader implicit Leader

leadership theory effectiveness

H2a
Authentic
leader
behaviors
Figure 1.
Research model
H1a
LODJ categorization theory (Lord and Maher, 1991), it is argued that to be successful and
34,2 exert influence in any leadership attempt, followers must perceive the person to be a
leader. Such a perception involves giving meaning or identity to an event, person,
object, or idea (i.e. categorization). Hence, the better the fit between the perceived
leadership behaviors and the leadership prototype, the more likely this individual
will be seen as a leader (Offermann et al., 1994; Foti and Luch, 1992). In other words,
186 leadership perceptions are based on cognitive categorization processes in which
perceivers match the perceived attributes of potential leaders they observe to an
internal prototype of leadership categories (Foti and Luch, 1992).
Expectations and predictions of leadership are developed through these
prototypes and categorizations, distinguishing good leaders from bad and effective
from ineffective, based on the attributes and behaviors held within the ILT of the
observer (Lord and Maher, 1991). In effect, leadership is an outcome of cognitive
processes in which people label individuals as leaders based on the fit between
observed leader behavior and their own implicit theory of leadership. Therefore
we hypothesize:

H2. The relationship between leader behaviors and leader effectiveness is perceived
to be influenced by follower ILT. In order for followers to see leadership
behaviors as effective, those behaviors must reside within their ILT.

However if authentic leadership is an ideal form of leadership, it should be seen as

effective regardless of whether or not those behaviors explicitly lie within a follower’s
ILT. A person may consciously disagree with those behaviors, but still rate such
a leader as effective:

H2a. The relationship between authentic transformational leadership (ATF)

behaviors and leader effectiveness is not perceived to be influenced by
follower ILT. Authentic leadership behaviors are perceived to be effective
regardless of the content of a follower’s ILT.

Methods
Sample
The hypotheses were examined using responses from scenarios created for this
study. Data were collected at a large North Texas University in the USA. The sample
consisted of 158 undergraduate students enrolled in business online classes,
reflecting a 73 percent response rate. The sample was comprised of primarily
juniors and seniors in college; 64 percent consisted of females and 72 percent were
under the age of 25. In total, 57 percent had at least one year of full-time work
experience. In total, 91 percent reported having at least one year of leadership
experience (as indicated by committee chair experience, club leadership experience,
and experience in managing other people in a work setting). In total, 47 percent
of students had taken a course in ethics.
The convenience sample of undergraduate students presents sample validity
threats to this study in generalizing the results to the leadership population. Three key
issues that counter this threat are addressed (Kam et al., 2007). The instrument used
was found to be a reliable and valid indicator of implicit leadership concepts. Second,
the population was heterogeneous and does not differ culturally from those entering
positions of leadership. Third, the population of students does not differ greatly from
those previously in preparation for leadership roles. Further, Flere and Lavric (2008) Authentic
found student samples are cautiously similar to the population when comparing leadership
student responses to world value samples.
The exploratory point of this research, coupled with the student sample exerting and theory
more cognitive effort than an average employee (Kam et al., 2007), supports the use of
this sample in this study. Finally, none of the constructs of this study require
experience when conducting evaluation of the hypotheses (Chelimsky, 1998). 187
None of the control variables (age, gender, race, class, work experience (full time and
part time), leadership experience (through indication of committee chair, club officer, or
managerial experience), and whether or not the students had taken an ethics course)
have a significant relationship with the dependent variables, meaning that any
effects found were not due to the control variables, as they shared little or no
correlation with the dependent variables, further indicating the utility of the student
sample for this research.

Procedure
Data were collected through the online course platform, WebCT. WebCT allows the
researcher to have complete control over who accesses which surveys, in a certain
order, at specific, time-limited hours and dates. An online consent form was provided
that assured confidentiality of responses. The anonymity reduced bias in the survey
results. Use of electronic surveys is appropriate with this sampling frame and does not
create a threat to sampling validity, a key issue with electronic surveys (Sheehan
and Hoy, 1999; Coomber, 1997).
Each student was randomly assigned to eight different groups, representing eight
separate conditions used to test all four hypotheses. Students could only access the
surveys assigned to their group and could not view other answers. Once the survey
was completed, students could not access the survey again. Examples of scenarios and
measures used can be found in Appendix.
Variance inflation factor (VIF) analysis was used to examine multicollinearity
of variables. Each hypothesis was examined descriptively using the mean and SD of
responses. An ANOVA was conducted to examine the significance of the relationships
between each group. Finally, reliability of the measures was examined using
Cronbach’s a internal measures.
To examine H1, two scenarios were created, one describing an effective leader, the
other an ineffective leader. Leader effectiveness was manipulated in the study using
four items based on an effectiveness measure developed by van Knippenberg and
van Knippenberg (2005). Each item was transformed into a sentence to include in the
scenario describing a leader’s effectiveness. For example, in the effective condition,
the scenario read “Joe completely trusts Frank, and has been heard to comment that
Frank is an excellent supervisor” (Joe is the follower and Frank is the leader). For the
ineffective condition, the same sentence reads “Joe, however, does not trust Frank and
has been heard to comment that Frank is a terrible supervisor.”
After reading scenarios to manipulate this relationship, students were asked
to give their opinion as to whether the follower’s ILT would change based on
feedback. Responses to six items measured on a seven-point scale ranging from 1
(not at all) to 7 (absolutely). Total scale scores were based on the mean of each
subject’s answers.
To examine H1a, two scenarios were created, one describing a leader who receives a
positive leadership evaluation, and one describing a leader who receives a negative
LODJ leadership evaluation. In this way, leader effectiveness was manipulated by describing
34,2 feedback that informed the reader of a leadership evaluation that was either positive
or negative based on past leadership behaviors. After reading a scenario to manipulate
this relationship, students were asked to give their opinion as to whether the leader’s
ILT would change based on feedback. Responses were obtained to six items measured
on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (absolutely). Total scale scores
188 were based on the mean of each subject’s answers.
To examine H2 and H2a, four scenarios were created (2  2 factorial design using
leadership style and congruence/non-congruence). Two scenarios described an
authentic transformational leader, and two describing a transactional leader, with a
congruent and non-congruent condition – congruence between leader’s and follower’s
implicit perceptions – for each style. In one condition the ILT of both the leader and the
follower contained ATF behavior content. In the second condition, the leader’s implicit
leadership theory (LILT) contained ATF leadership behavior content, but the follower’s
implicit leadership theory (FILT) did not. The leadership behaviors were based on an
ethical leadership measure developed by Brown et al. (2005) and transformational
items from the MLQ 5  (Bass and Avolio, 1990).
Congruence and non-congruence conditions were created for the two leadership
styles by including in each scenario a description of the LILT content and then
a description of a follower who either agreed or disagreed with the leader’s behavior
style (i.e. LILT content and FILT content contained similar information about
leader behavior).
After reading scenarios that manipulated varying combinations of variables,
leadership effectiveness was assessed. Responses were obtained across four items,
each measured on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (absolutely)
(van Knippenberg and van Knippenberg, 2005). This measure was chosen due to its
short length and successful use in past studies (e.g. Pierro et al., 2005). Total scale
scores were obtained by taking a mean of each subject’s answers.
The use of scenarios in this research is specifically designed for imaging future
research work. The effort here is to anticipatorily examine and create a desirable
research agenda.

Results
VIF were used on variables to determine multicollinearity. The VIF is a measure of the
variance of the inflated the effect of the independent variables in the model, including
the standard error of the variable, compared to uncorrelated independent variables,
thus making the coefficient of determination unstable (Suen, 1990). Where VIFs in
excess of 10.0 exist, severe multicollinearity problems are present in the models.
All VIFs for the variables are below 10.0, indicating multicollinearity is not present
(Suen, 1990).

H1
H1 projected that perceptions of leader effectiveness affect a FILT. Students have
significantly higher expectations for the followers to behave similarly to the leader
when the leader is considered effective (mean ¼ 5.94, SD ¼ 0.56) than when he is
considered ineffective (mean ¼ 2.23, SD ¼ 0.72). The ANOVA found the difference
is significant (F ¼ 469.18, po0.001; n ¼ 56). Using Cronbach’s a, the measure is reliable
(a ¼ 0.94). H1 is supported.
H1a Authentic
H1a projected that perceptions of a leader’s own effectiveness will influence his ILT. leadership
Students have higher expectations for the leaders to maintain their current behaviors
with positive feedback (mean ¼ 5.55, SD ¼ 0.72) than with negative feedback and theory
(mean ¼ 2.95, SD ¼ 0.99), and the difference is significant (F ¼ 131.67, po0.001;
n ¼ 59). The measure is reliable (a ¼ 0.94). H1a is supported.
Results from H1 and H1a suggest that feedback on leader effectiveness 189
provides a basis for continual adjustment to a person’s ILT, for both leaders and
followers. The data from these hypotheses indicate that ILT may not be as stable
as once thought. Students believe that followers and leaders alike, through
observations and feedback on leader effectiveness, adjust their ILT, supporting
Weick and Bougon’s (1986) argument that changes in cognitive structure occur
continuously. Development of ILT is an ongoing process involving cognitive
matches between leader behavior and previous categorizations of ideal leader
behavior (Lord and Maher, 1991). In relationship to the results of these hypotheses,
new observations of effective (or ineffective) leader behavior influence current
categorizations of leadership.

H2 and H2a
H2 projected that the relationship between leadership behaviors and leader
effectiveness is influenced by the content of a FILT. H2a projected that the
relationship between ATF behaviors and leader effectiveness is not influenced by the
content of a FILT (as indicated by congruence). Both leadership style and congruence
were manipulated across four scenarios. Students were asked, based on the scenario, if
the follower would find the leader effective (1 ¼ not at all; 7 ¼ absolutely). Means, SD,
and ANOVA results can be found in Table I.
As expected, the main effect for congruence between a FILT and a leader’s behavior
is significant in both style conditions, meaning that a follower finds those leaders
effective who display behaviors consistent with their implicit theory. In addition, there
is a significant main effect for leadership style. Examination of the effectiveness means
reveals that authentic transformational leaders (mean ¼ 3.58, SD ¼ 0.94) are evaluated
as more effective than transactional leaders (mean ¼ 2.35, SD ¼ 0.76).
Thus, although congruence between a FILT and a leader’s behavior was expected to
significantly increase leader effectiveness evaluations, authentic transformational

Dependent variable: leader effectiveness

Style Congruence Mean SD n

ATF Non-congruent 3.57 0.94 25

Congruent 6.20 0.85 28
Total 4.96 1.59 53
TA Non-congruent 2.35 0.76 22
Congruent 5.68 1.30 27
Total 4.18 1.99 49
Total Non-congruent 3.00 1.05 47
Congruent 5.94 1.12 55
Table I.
Total 4.59 1.83 102
Descriptive data for
Notes: ATF, authentic transformational leadership; TA, transformational leadership H2 and H2a
LODJ leaders are seen as more effective than transactional leaders, regardless of whether
34,2 followers contain authentic transformational leader behaviors in their ILT.
A two-way ANOVA (style  congruence) was performed for H2 and H2a as shown
in Table II. The results indicate a significant main effect for style (F ¼ 19.37, po0.001;
n ¼ 102) and an interaction between style and congruence (F ¼ 3.09, po0.083; n ¼ 102).
If subjects perceive that followers must agree with a leader’s style (congruence) to see
190 that leader as effective, then there would have been no effect for style, and no
interaction between style and congruence. The weak interaction is important as it
illustrates again that style is important; there would be no interaction if authentic
leadership was not perceived to be effective in both congruent and non-congruent
scenarios. The interaction is weak because only authentic leadership interacts, not
transactional. The measures are reliable (a ¼ 0.95). Both H2 and H2a are supported.
Leadership perceptions are based on cognitive categorization processes in which
perceivers match the perceived attributes of potential leaders they observe to an
internal prototype of leadership categories (Foti and Luch, 1992). Expectations and
predictions of leadership are developed through these prototypes and categorizations,
distinguishing good leaders from bad and effective from ineffective, based on the
attributes and behaviors held within the ILT of the observer (Lord and Maher, 1991). In
effect, leadership is an outcome of cognitive processes in which people label individuals
as leaders based on the fit between observed leader behavior and their own implicit
theory of leadership.
H2 was supported in that transactional leader behaviors and leader effectiveness is
perceived to be influenced by FILT. H2a stated, however, that this would not be true for
authentic leaders. H2a was supported. Students do not believe that congruence
between LILT and FILT are necessary for an authentic leader to be seen as effective;
they are seen as effective regardless of ILT dyadic congruence. However, results
indicate there must be a content match between a transactional LILT and a FILT, as one
might expect based on the previously discussed research by Lord and Maher (1991).

Conclusions and contributions

Past research has suggested that ILT are stable (see Epitropaki and Martin, 2004). This
study contributes to ILT literature by demonstrating that a person’s ILT change as a
function of his or her experiences with leaders. It cannot be disregarded; this research
suggests that people believe observations of effectiveness (a change in context) will
influence ILT. We provide an extension of theory by looking at the authentic leadership
paradigm through the lens of ILT and by viewing perceptions of leader effectiveness as
a continuous influence on ILT.

Type III sum Mean Observed

Source of squares df square F Significance powera

Corrected model 241.03b 3 80.34 80.67 0.001 1.00

Intercept 2,007.02 1 2,007.02 2,015.26 0.001 1.00
Style 19.29 1 19.29 19.37 0.001 0.99
Congruence 224.38 1 224.38 225.30 0.001 1.00
Style
Table II.  congruence 3.06 1 3.06 3.07 0.083 0.41
ANOVA results for
a b 2 2
H2 and H2a Notes: Computed using a ¼ 0.05; R ¼ 0.71 (adjusted R ¼ 0.70)
Authentic leadership is presented as a root construct of all positive, effective Authentic
forms of leadership (Avolio et al., 2004), including spiritual, ethical, servant, and leadership
transformational leadership. Through both the organizational and personal
perspectives, it is posited that authentic leaders develop higher levels of and theory
self-awareness and self-regulated positive behaviors in leaders and followers, with
the result being positive self-development in each (Luthans and Avolio, 2003).
As theoretically developed, authentic leadership does not explain the mechanisms 191
to achieve the proposed outcomes for both leaders and followers of positive
self-development and positive psychological states (Avolio and Gardner, 2005). Two
key points for future research are noted. One, research should be conducted using
individuals in leadership positions in organizations as a way to ensure sampling
validity. While this study is cautiously optimistic the results here are indicative of the
key connection between authenticity and implicit theory, experience coupled with
cognitive alertness can support the connection. The link between authentic leadership
and implicit theory is operationalized in scenarios used in the experiment by
describing ethical and transformational leadership using items from the MLQ by
Bass and Avolio (1990), and an ethical leadership measure by Brown et al. (2005).
This operationalization should be replicated and verified to validate the measure,
using alternative testing methods to confirm reliability. In addition, the scenarios
used to invoke forward thinking issues may be revised based on the critical input of
experienced leaders.
Second, we noted ILT are an ongoing process involving cognitive matches between
leader behavior and previous categorizations of ideal leader behavior by follower.
Research in the context of varied organizational settings is needed to provide a
construct that is free from distortion and bias found in varied missions and values of
firms and current leadership.
For leaders, several points of consideration for leadership application are noted.
First, leaders should use the mechanisms of leadership (inspirational motivation,
intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and idealized influence) to
achieve organizational outcomes. This creates the follower perception of authenticity
in leadership.
Second, descriptions of authentic leaders are based on a more accurate definition of
authenticity and that suggests authentic leaders know who they are and what they
believe and are transparent and consistent in their values and actions, though not
necessarily altruistic. Leadership development in this self-awareness is an imperative
as noted by this study.
Further, authentic leadership is not a paradigm within itself, but must be studied in
conjunction with effective leadership and implicit theory to discover the contribution to
positive organizational outcomes. Unless we link leadership behavior to outcomes, the
study of leadership is hardly a relevant pursuit; and since so often belief drives
behavior, it is important to understand the connection between authentic leadership
behavior and the expectations we have for our leadership.

References
Avolio, B.J. and Gardner, W.L. (2005), “Authentic leadership development: getting to the root of
positive forms of leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 315-38.
Avolio, B.J., Gardner, W.L., Walumbwa, F.O., Luthans, F. and May, D.R. (2004), “Unlocking the
mask: a look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and
behaviors”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 801-23.
LODJ Bass, B.M. (1998), “The ethics of transformational leadership”, in Ciulla, J. (Ed.), Ethics, the Heart
of Leadership, Praeger, Westport, CT, pp. 169-92.
34,2
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1990), Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire,
Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Bass, B.M. and Steidlmeier, P. (1999), “Ethics, character, and authentic transformational
leadership behavior”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 181-217.
192 Brown, M.E., Trevino, L.K. and Harrison, D.A. (2005), “Ethical leadership: a social learning
perspective for construct development and testing”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 97 No. 2, pp. 117-34.
Calder, B.J. (1977), “An attribution theory of leadership”, in Staw, B. and Salancik, G. (Eds), New
Directions in Organizational Behavior, St Clair Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 179-204.
Chelimsky, E. (1998), “The role of experience in formulating theories of evaluation practice”,
American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 98 No. 1, pp. 35-56.
Conger, J. and Kanungo, R.N. (1998), Charismatic Leadership in Organizations, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Conger, J.A. (1999), “Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: an insider’s
perspective on these developing streams of research”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10
No. 2, pp. 145-69.
Coomber, R. (1997), “Using the internet for survey research”, Sociological Research Online, Vol. 2
No. 2, available at: www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/2/2.html
Eden, D. and Leviathan, U. (1975), “Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the factor
structure underlying supervisory behavior scales”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60
No. 6, pp. 736-41.
Epitropaki, O. and Martin, R. (2004), “Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: factor
sructure, generalizability, and stability over time”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89
No. 2, pp. 293-310.
Flere, S. and Lavric, M. (2008), “On the validity of cross-cultural social studies using student
samples”, Field Methods, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 399-412.
Foti, R.J. and Luch, C.H. (1992), “The influence of individual differences on the perception and
categorization of leaders”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 55-66.
Gardner, W.L. and Schermerhorn, J.R. (2004), “Unleashing individual potential: performance
gains through positive organizational behavior and authentic leadership”, Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 270-81.
George, J.M. and Jones, G.R. (1997), “Experiencing work: values, attitudes, and moods”, Human
Relations, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 393-416.
Hartog, D.N., House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S.A. and Dormfan, P.W. (1999), “Culture
specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: are attributes of
charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed?”, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 219-56.
Howell, J.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1993), “Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus
of control and support for innovation: key predictors of consolidated-business-unit
performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 6, pp. 891-902.
Hunt, J.G., Boal, K.B. and Sorenson, R.L. (1990), “Top management leadership: inside the black
box”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 41-65.
Kam, C.D., Wilking, J.R. and Zechmeister, E.J. (2007), “Beyond the ‘narrow data base’: another
convenience sample for experimental research”, Political Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 415-40.
Kanungo, R.N. and Mendonca, M. (1996), Ethical Dimensions in Leadership, Sage Publications,
Beverly Hills, CA.
Keller, T. (1999), “Images of the familiar: individual differences on implicit leadership theories”, Authentic
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 589-607.
leadership
Knights, D. and Willmott, H. (1992), “Conceptualizing leadership processes: senior managers in
a financial services company”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 761-82. and theory
Lord, R.G. and Maher, K.J. (1991), Leadership and Information Processing: Linking Perceptions
and Performance, Routledge, Boston, MA.
Lord, R.G., De Vader, C.C. and Alliger, G.M. (1986), “A meta-analysis of the relations between 193
personality traits and leadership perceptions: an application of validity generalization
procedures”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 402-10.
Luthans, F. and Avolio, B.J. (2003), “Authentic leadership: a positive developmental approach”, in
Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E. and Quinn, R.E. (Eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship,
Barrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA, pp. 241-61.
May, D.R., Chan, A.Y.L., Hodges, T.D. and Avolio, B.J. (2003), “Developing the moral component of
authentic leadership”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 247-60.
Mehra, A., Kilduff, M. and Brass, D.J. (1998), “At the margins: a distinctiveness approach to the
social identity and social networks of underrepresented groups”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 441-52.
Offermann, L.R., Kennedy, J.K. and Wirtz, P.W. (1994), “Implicit leadership theories: content,
structure, and generalizability”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 43-58.
Pierro, A., Cicero, L., Bonaiuto, M., vanKnippenberg, D. and Kruglanski, A.W. (2005), “Leader
group prottypicality and leadership effectiveness: the moderating role of need for cognitive
closure”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 503-16.
Robinson, S. (1996), “Trust and breach of the psycological contract”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 574-99.
Sankowsky, D. (1995), “The charismatic leader as narcissist: understanding the abuse of power”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 57-71.
Shaw, J.B. (1990), “A cognitive categorization model for the study of intercultural management”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 435-54.
Sheehan, K.B. and Hoy, M.G. (1999), “E-mail surveys: response patterns, process and potential”,
Proceedings of the 1997 Conference of the American Academy of Advertisers, Orlando,
October 24-27.
Suen, H.K. (1990), Principles of Test Theories, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
van Knippenberg, B. and van Knippenberg, D. (2005), “Leader self-sacrifice and leadership
effectiveness: the moderator role of leadership prototypicality”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 1, pp. 25-37.
Weick, K.E. and Bougon, M.G. (1986), “Organizations as cognitive maps: charting ways to
success and failure”, in Sims, H.P. and Gioia, D.A. (Eds), The Thinking Organization –
Dynamics of Organizational Social Cognition, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 102-35.

Further reading
Epitropaki, O. and Martin, R. (2005), “From ideal to real: a longitudinal study of the role of
implicit leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 4, pp. 659-76.

Appendix
Scenarios and measure for H1
Condition 1: Joe is an employee in Average American Company. Frank is Joe’s leader in the
company. Joe completely trusts Frank, and has been heard to comment that Frank is an
“excellent” supervisor. If asked, Joe would say that Frank is a good and very effective leader.
LODJ Condition 2: Joe is an employee at Average American Company. Frank is Joe’s
boss in the company. Joe, however, does not trust Frank, and has been heard to
34,2 comment that Frank is a terrible supervisor. If asked, Joe would say that Frank is a bad
and very ineffective leader:
(1) To what degree do you believe Joe will incorporate Frank’s behaviors into his idea of
ideal leadership?
194 (2) To what degree do you think Joe forms his opinions about leadership based on Frank’s
behavior?
(3) To what degree do you think Joe would behave the same as Frank if he found himself in
a similar leadership position?
(4) To what degree do you think Joe would change his personal theory about ideal
leadership based on Frank’s behaviors?
(5) To what degree do you think Joe and Frank have the same personal theory about ideal
leadership?
(6) To what degree do you think Joe rejects Frank’s ideas about leadership?
Scenarios and measure to test H1a
Condition 1: Frank is a leader in Average American Company. After a six-month period of
behaving like he normally does, Frank receives a leadership evaluation that is negative. He then
thinks about his behavior over the past six-month period.
Condition 2: Frank is a leader in Average American Company. After a six-month period of
behaving like he normally does, Frank receives a leadership evaluation that is positive. He then
evaluates his behavior over the past-six month period:

(1) To what degree do you think Frank would behave the same as he has over the last
six-months during the next six-month period?
(2) To what degree do you think Frank will maintain his leadership behaviors of the last
six months?
(3) To what degree do you think Frank will continue acting as he has over the last six
months?
(4) To what degree do you think Frank’s personal theory about leadership will remain
the same?
Example scenario and measure to test H2a
Conditions 1 and 2: Frank is a leader in Average American Company. If asked, those around
Frank would say that he conducts his life in an ethical manner. He defines success not just by
results, but also the way those results are obtained. He listens to what employees have to say,
and disciplines those employees who violate ethical standards. He is known for making fair and
balanced decisions, and can always be trusted. He often discusses business ethics or values
with employees, and sets an example of how to do things the right way, in terms of ethics.
He has the best interests of employees in mind, and when making decisions, asks “what is the
right thing to do?”
Additionally, Frank makes personal sacrifices for the benefit of others. He is known for
remaining calm during crisis situations. He instills pride in those he leads, just for being
associated with him. He goes beyond his own self-interest for the good of the group, and
provides reassurance that obstacles will be overcome. He displays extraordinary talent and
competence in whatever he undertakes. His actions garner respect from his followers, and he
displays a sense of power and confidence.
 Frank is known to set high standards, and envisions exciting new possibilities. He talks Authentic
optimistically of the future, expressing confidence that he and his followers will achieve their
goals. He provides continuous encouragement to those he leads, focussing the attention of his leadership
followers on “what it takes” to be successful. He talks enthusiastically about what needs to be and theory
accomplished, and arouses an awareness of what is essential to consider in those he leads.
He articulates a compelling vision of the future, and shows determination to accomplish
whatever he sets out to do.
Frank also emphasizes the value of questioning assumptions. He re-examines critical 195
assumptions to question whether they are appropriate, and encourages those he leads to rethink
ideas which had never been questioned before, including the traditional ways of doing things.
He seeks differing perspectives when solving problems, and suggests new ways of looking
at how they do their jobs. He encourages those he leads to express their ideas and opinions,
and gets those he leads to look at problems from many different angles. He encourages
non-traditional thinking to deal with traditional problems, and encourages addressing problems
by using reasoning and evidence, rather than unsupported opinion.
Frank also treats those he leads as individuals, rather than just members of a group. He
listens attentively to the concerns of those he leads, and provides useful advice for their
development. He focusses on developing his followers’ strengths, and spends time teaching and
coaching them. He treats each of those he leads as individuals with different needs, abilities, and
aspirations. He also teaches those he leads how to identify the needs and capabilities of others.
He promotes self-development among his followers, and gives personal attention to those who
seem neglected.
Condition 1 ending: Joe is one of Frank’s followers, and has observed Frank’s leadership
behaviors. Joe agrees with Frank’s leadership style and would probably act the same way Frank
does if he were in a similar leadership position.
Condition 2 ending: Joe is one of Frank’s followers. He has observed all of the above behaviors
in Frank, and does not necessarily agree with Frank’s leadership style. Whereas he
acknowledges that leaders may behave as Frank does, Joe believes there are other behaviors that
may more appropriately represent good leadership. He might not necessarily act the same way
Frank does if he were in a similar leadership position.
To what degree do you agree with the following statements:
(1) Joe places trust in Frank.
(2) Joe believes Frank is an excellent supervisor.
(3) Joe believes Frank is a good leader.
(4) Joe believes Frank is a very effective leader.
(5) Joe does not believe Frank is a successful leader.

Corresponding author
Thomas W. Nichols can be contacted at: tnichols@txwes.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints