Authentic Transformational Leadership 56503b

Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

Authentic Transformational Leadership: Authenticity as the key to sustainable organization change

Ajay Kumar Executive FPM, XLRI, Jamshedpur

-1-

Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

Authentic Transformational Leadership: Authenticity as the key to sustainable organization change Ajay Kumar

Abstract In this article I have studied the authenticity of transformation leader during change. Transformational leaders often rely on charisma to bring radical or large-scale change. Charisma on the other hand has the scope of manipulation as it is based on emotions rather than on rationality. Transformational leaders go though divergent personal interests and organizational interests and values conflict during the process of change which leads to moral tension. Moral tension manifests in word-action misfit. Blind followership under the idealized influence of transformational leader and a transformational leader leading change under the moral tension may not result into institutionalization

and

sustenance

of

change.

I

propose

authenticity

in

transformational leader as a solution to overcome the challenges of manipulation and moral tension faced by them.

Introduction It is not new to say that leadership is critical to successful implementation of change. Management’s leadership effort in the change effort seems to be the key determinant of whether that change will succeed (Clement, 1994). Popper and Zakkai (1994) stated that transformational leadership is proactive. This kind of leader sees the present as a springboard to achieve future aims. They engage in a process, which includes a sequence of phases: recognizing the need for change, creating a new vision, and then institutionalizing the change (Tichy and Devanna, 1990). Charbonneaue (2004) noted that transformational leaders use methods of influence that result in their followers’ commitment to a request. Bass (1985) also identified charisma or idealized influence (followers trust in and emotionally identify with the leader) as one of the important factors of transformational leaders. But charismatic leadership processes may leave space for persuasion and manipulation and ethical

-2-

Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

questions concerning its nature (Marjosola and Takala, 2000). Manipulation can stem from the divergent personal and organizational responsibilities (Bernard, 1958) which engender moral tension (Novicevic et al., 2005) in the leader resulting into difficulty in maintaining congruence between words and deeds. The divergence between words and deeds has profound costs as it renders managers untrustworthy and undermines their credibility and their ability to use their words to influence the actions of their subordinates (Simons, 1999). Behavioral integrity, therefore, has emerged as a highly

problematic element

in

the

current

environment

of

near-continuous

organizational change (Simons, 1999). Leadership has always been more difficult in challenging times, but the unique stressors facing organizations throughout the world today call for a renewed focus on what constitutes genuine leadership (Avolio and Gardner, 2005). Environmental turbulence has stimulated the search for new theories of leadership, a search that has resulted in a growing body of serious academic research and popular literature (Schruijer and Vansina, 1999). One such outcome of research has been the concept of authenticity (i.e. the idea of ‘being oneself’ or being ‘true to oneself’) which is becoming a central focus of responsible behaviour of leaders in post-Enron era (Novicevic et al., 2006). Authenticity involves both owing one’s personal experiences (values, thoughts, emotions and beliefs) and acting in accordance with one’s true self (expressing what you really think an believe and behaving accordingly) (Harter, 2002). Authentic leaders are those who are deeply aware of how they think and behave and are perceived by others as being aware of their own and others’ values/moral perspectives, knowledge, and strengths; aware of the context in which they operate; and who are confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, and of high moral character (Avolio and Gardner, 2005). My purpose through this article is to highlight the implications of the manipulation by a transformational leader leading change and a transformational leader leading change under moral tension and then, I propose authenticity in the transformational leader as a solution to minimize manipulations and moral tension so that change in the organization is sustainable and institutionalized.

-3-

Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

Leadership and organization change The importance of leadership to the change management process is underscored by the fact that change, by definition, requires creating a new system and then institutionalizing the new approaches (Kotter, 1995). As the environment becomes more turbulent, more attention is given to leadership in organizational change (Schruijer and Vansina, 1999). Leadership then becomes closely linked to the management of change. Nadler and Tushman (1990) noted that executive leadership is the critical factor in the initiation and implementation of large-system organization change. Tyler (2005) in his study on merger process proposed that Leadership is central to change and, in particular, to the ability to produce “constructive or adoptive change”. Effective implementation and management of significant organizational change is an elusive process. The sheer complexity of organizational system can often lead to unpredictable and detrimental outcomes. Given the challenges of managing complexity and internal resistance to change, the task of the top executive during the implementation of change can be very difficult indeed (Manz et al., 1991). Therefore, management leadership – especially top management – is probably the most critical element in a major organizational change effort (Clement, 1994). A successful change doesn’t stop at the stage of communication and adoption (Armenakis et al., 1999), but it needs to be institutionalized as Kotter (1995) proposed that change sticks only when it becomes “the way we do things around here'', when it seeps into the bloodstream of the corporate body. Armenakis et al. (1999) outlined a three-stage change process model that proceeds linearly from readiness to adoption to institutionalization. Readiness is defined as a cognitive state that occurs when organization have positive attitudes, beliefs and intentions towards the change (Armenakis et al., 1993). When appropriate cognitive state is attained through the development of relevant attitude, belief and intentions toward the change, organizational begin to adopt change such that they behave in a way that is consistent with the change initiative and then change is completely integrated into the organizational fabric, that is, change is institutionalized (Holt et al., 2003).

-4-

Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

Holt et al. (2003) proposed that regardless of the specific phases of the change process, organizational leaders choose to embark on the change journey to strengthen organizational performance and improve effectiveness.

Transformational Leader and organization change Transformational, charismatic and visionary leaders can successfully change the status quo in their organization by displaying the appropriate behaviours at appropriate stage in the transformation process (Eisenbach et al., 1999). Transformational leaders are a boon for the successful management of change (Simons, 1999) as they enhance organization ' affective commitment by getting them to profoundly alter their attitudes and assumptions about work (Yukl, 1989). When they realize that the old ways no longer work, they may undertake the task of developing an appealing vision of the future which provides both a strategic and a motivational focus leading to a clear statement of the purpose of the organization and a source of inspiration and commitment (Eisenbach et al., 1999). Transformational leadership has been argued to motivate people to go beyond their selfinterest and to pursue goals and values of the collective (Tyler and Cremer, 2005). It is often identified by the effect that it has on followers' attitudes, values, assumptions and commitments

(Yukl,

1989)

that

lead

to

successful

organizational

change.

Transformational leaders change their followers’ attitudes, values, and beliefs to align them with those of the organization and steer their followers towards self-development and greater-than-expected accomplishments (Bass, 1990). They motivate followers to identify with the leader's vision and sacrifice their self- interest for that of the group or the organization (Bass, 1985). In order to pull or attract followers to different change possibilities, the leader must craft an appealing vision that takes into consideration the underlying needs and values of the key stakeholders (Eisenbach et al., 1999). How a transformational leader does it? What are those leadership behaviours that bring about the desired transformation in the follower? Bass (1985) stated that such leaders display the following four types of behaviour to successfully lead their followers –

-5-

Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

Idealized influence: They use idealized influence when they appeal to subordinates’ ideals and act as role models. Inspirational motivation: They inspire followers by presenting them with an attractive vision, an approach known as inspirational motivation. Intellectual stimulation: They use intellectual stimulation to encourage their subordinates to think in innovative ways. Individualized consideration: Lastly, they demonstrate individualized consideration by showing care and concern for each subordinate. Charbonneaue (2004) based on an empirical study of military personnel identified that leaders who use more influence methods that result in targets’ internalization of a request or task are perceived as more transformational. Yukl (2002) also noted that the influence process is important in as much as it impacts on the outcome of the request. Holt et al. (2003) stated that the extent to which organization achieves the benefits at the end of the change process is affected by the influence strategies used by organizational leaders to encourage adoption and implementation of the change. Transformational leadership factor, idealized influence, also known as charisma is concerned with being a role model, respected, ired, trusted, persistent and determined (Charbonneaue, 2004). It refers to leaders’ behaviours that inspire others to change their beliefs and values. It also refers to the manner in which a request is presented (Charbonneaue, 2004). Simons (1999) asserted that charismatic leadership is a key element of transformational leadership. The charismatic leadership dimension has consistently represented the strongest single predictor of leadership outcomes (Bass, 1990). Further, Charbonneaue (2004) also found out from his study that rational persuasion and inspirational appeals contribute significantly to idealized influence. Inspirational appeals refer to the use of values and ideals to arouse an emotional response in the target (Yukl, 2002). The request is presented in such a way by the leader that it resonates with the target’s needs, values, and ideals (Charbonneaue, 2004) and inspires and influences them to enact desired change. Therefore, the manner in which leaders make requests is

-6-

Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

important because it may ultimately lead to followers’ broader commitment to the organization’s goals and values (Charbonneaue, 2004). Proposition – I: Charisma (or idealized influence) is a critical dimension of a transformational leader to bring desired outcome. Proposition – II: Inspirational appeals and rational persuasions significantly contribute to Charisma (or idealized influence) of a transformational leader.

Scope of manipulation in Transformational Leadership Charisma works with emotions. Accepting charisma, from the followers' point of view, can be seen as dubious, showing the tendency to be easily impressed by others (Marjosola and

Takala, 2000). This may leave room for irrationality. Irrationality

allows extra space for the persuasion and manipulation between leaders and the led (Marjosola and Takala, 2000). Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) proposed since inspirational leadership rhetoric appeals to emotions

rather than to reason, this is unethical.

Persuasion and manipulation mean that someone deliberately and systematically attempts to

shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and

direct behaviour to

achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist (Jowett and O’Donnell, 1992). Root of such manipulation can be traced to the multiple responsibilities of a leader. Leadership is often characterized by a nexus of multiple responsibilities toward various stakeholders of an organization (Novicevic et al., 2005). Bernard (1958) proposed that a leader has

two primary types of responsibilities: Personal responsibility and

Organizational responsibility. A persistent conflict can exist between them. This conflict reflects a moral tension engendered by the oftentimes competing interests. The higher the leader is in the organization, the higher the complexity of moral issues engendered by the interaction between diverse responsibilities and associated loyalties (Novicevic et al., 2005). There is a growing personal suspicion that most managers in America today pretend to be nicer than they really are (Simons, 1999). An interest in the moral capacity of

-7-

Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

organizational leaders to resist the short-term directions of the Wall Street “price makers” and the episodic herd behavior of peer “price takers” has become prominent among leadership researchers (Terry, 1993). In the name of organizational collective benefit, such leaders propagate their own benefit. They exploit followers into foregoing their own best interest (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999). Michie and Gooty (2005) further noted that by focusing primarily on organizational interests the leaders also indirectly promotes self-interests, because the success of the organization is directly (i.e. compensation) and indirectly (i.e. reputation) connected to the leaders individual success and well-being. It is possible to describe an ideal professional whose typical behavioural tendencies, values, and other important features are such that they serve the goals of the profession. Consequently, there is an evident gap between general moral considerations and professional duties and values. For certain professions this gap may be wide (Marjosola and Takala, 2000). Proposition – III: Charisma as a transformational leader dimension leaves scope for deliberate manipulation. Proposition – IV: Divergent personal and organizational responsibility can be a cause of such manipulation.

Authenticity and Transformational Leader A leader, whose self-awareness is high, recognizes the moral intensity of each situation, exhibits moral imagination by rising above normative solutions to create, with moral efficacy, solutions that impact the moral climate of the organization (Novicevic et al., 2005) is an authentic leader. An effective leader has to master diverse moral tensions and exhibit authenticity in moral awareness and decision making (i.e. be perceived to reflect genuineness, reliability, trustworthiness, reality, and veracity) for the stakeholders to grant legitimacy to the leader’s authority and endorse the necessary adaptations as legitimate (Tyler, 1997). As Novicevic et al. (2006) proposed that authenticity of organizational leadership depends upon the leader success or the lack of success in attempts to resolve the challenges inherent to moral conflict of responsibility (personal vs. organizational).

-8-

Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

This is crucial for organizational morale as, “the creation of organizational morality is the spirit that overcomes the centrifugal interests or motives” of organizational constituents (Barnard, 1938). Moral transparency and resilience are necessary for sustainability of this impact because the quality of leadership, the persistence of its influence, the durability of its related organizations, the power of cooperation it entices, all express the height of moral aspirations, the breadth of moral foundations (Bernard, 1938). Self-awareness and awareness about the needs of all the stakeholders may lead sometimes to conflict between the personal values of the leader and organizational values (Ryan

and Scott, 1995). Incongruence personal and organizational values

create moral tension in the leader (Novicevic et al., 2006). Change projects by their nature risk generating perceptions of

managerial word-action misfit through managerial

ambivalence, confusion, and other mechanisms

(Simons, 1999). Behavioral integrity

proposed by Simons (1999) elaborates the perceived degree of congruence between the values expressed by words and those expressed through action. It is the perceived level of match or mismatch between the espoused and the enacted. In such environment where espoused values do not match with actions, leaders and followers will talk the espoused while behaviorally following the enacted (Simons, 1999). Since one’s moral judgment often reflects a tension between one’s personal norms of responsibility and the collective norms of moral conformity, authenticity can be viewed as an individual state-like trait that enables the individual to reconcile this tension - “owing one’s personal experiences” and acting in accord with “one’s inner thoughts and feelings” as a way of resolving the tension/conflict between moral conviction and moral conformity (Novicevic et al., 2006). Authenticity by definition involve being true to the self (Gardner et al., 2005). Authenticity is a social condition of minimal discrepancy between projected

external

appearance

and

underlying

internal

structure

(Etzioni, 1968). Authenticity reflects a leader’s moral capacity to align responsibilities to the self, to the followers, and to the public in efforts to sustain cooperative efforts within and outside the organization (Novicevic et al., 2006). Executives with secure selfesteem tend to assume personal responsibility by acting on personal values, while those with low self-esteem tend to avoid it (Novicevic et al., 2006). Authenticity as the unobstructed operation of one’s

-9-

Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

true, or core, self in one’s daily enterprise. One product of authenticity is optimal selfesteem characterize as genuine, true, stable and congruent high self-esteem, as opposed to high self-esteem that tends to be fragile due to its defensive, contingent, and discrepant qualities (Kernis, 2003). Terry (1993) also

noted that there was an increasing pattern of divergence

between managers' words and deeds. This divergence is largely driven by managers' understandable responses to managerial fads and to organizational change efforts. From a study conducted by Tyler and Degoey (1996) it can be inferred that leader’s trust in management enhances followers’ compliance with organizational rules and laws, increases the zone of indifference, and facilitates the implementation of organizational change and vice versa an apparent mistrust not only causes followers to reciprocate with less trust, but can also cause the followers’ to in turn behave in a less trustworthy manner. Challenge of maintaining behavioral integrity is critical for the development of employee trust and commitment that are vital for successful change efforts. Leaders, by violating behavioral integrity, reduce their ability to induce change through their words. Some employees will become increasingly frustrated as they attempt to bridge the large gap between the espoused and the actual. Others will become cynical and contemptuous of their leaders (Simons, 1999). For a successful change management behavioural integrity is a must for the leader (Simons, 1999). Authenticity implies that “one act in accordance with one’s true self, expressing oneself in the ways that are consistent with inner thoughts and feelings (Harter, 2002). Authentic behaviour refers to actions that are guided by the leader’s true self as reflected by core values,

beliefs,

thoughts

and

contingencies

or pressure from others

feelings,

as

opposed

to

environmental

(Gardner et al., 2005). Authenticity of an

individual is a virtuous aspiration to rise above the average expectations of following someone else’s directions or following the crowd – authentic leaders are virtuous due to their reluctance to rely on commonly accepted schema when seeking solutions to moral problems (Pianalato, 2003). Goffee and Jones (2005) note authenticity ensure your words are consistent with your deeds. The most disturbing thing a leader can do is doublespeak and create a sense of

mistrust. Authenticity is the idea of ‘being oneself’ or being ‘true to

oneself’ (Novicevic et al., 2006).

- 10 -

Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

Proposition – V: Incongruence personal and organizational values create moral tension in the leader that leads to word-action mismatch. Proposition

–

VI:

Authenticity

involves

behavioural

integrity

which

can

help

transformational leader develop moral capacity to align divergent responsibilities. Self-awareness doesn’t always guarantee a moral and authentic response from the leader on the contrary sometimes it can be opposite – deliberate immorality and inauthenticity. A leader may be self-aware, still he can manipulate to meet personal or organizational objectives. Michie and Gooty (2005) observed that lacking emotional harmony with one’s values indicates a lack of integrity and moral consistency. Such leaders may act in ways that appear altruistic towards collective entities by advocating a mission that promotes organizational success at the same time, exploiting individual ingroup or out-group stakeholders to achieve extraordinary goals. They are inauthentic or unethical leaders who are insensitive and unresponsive to the needs and aspirations of others (Howell and Avolio, 1992). Such inauthentic or exploitative leaders deliberately promote self-interests at the expense of their constituencies (Michie and Gooty, 2005). Further, leaders and managers must be aware that excessively promoting the interest of one entity through the exploitation or abuse of another has ethical implications that put the organization at risk (Michie and Gooty, 2005). Consequently the long-term objective of change process of its institutionalization may fall apart. Authentic leaders are guided towards doing what is right and fair for all stakeholders (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999). Self-awareness regarding one’s values is pre-requisite for authenticity and authentic leadership (Gardner et al., 2005). Authenticity of the leader will influence follower self-awareness of values/moral perspective, more based

on

their individual character,

personal example, and dedication, than on

inspirational appeals, dramatic presentations, or other forms of impression management (Avolio and Gardner, 2005). Capacity for awareness, determination and dependability to remain true to oneself and aligned with the organization’s genuine mission, while ionately enacting organizational vision, which can be conceptualized as authenticity in leader (May et al., 2003) will be of importance under this situation. Authentic leaders are transparent about

- 11 -

Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

their interactions and strive to maintain a seamless link between espoused values, behaviours, and actions (Michie and Gooty, 2005). Proposition – VII: A self-aware transformational leader can also deliberately promote self- interest (or deliberately interest of a particular stakeholder). Proposition – VIII: Authenticity involves being fair and right to all stakeholders which can help transformational leader transcend the self-interest boundary. The notion of “hierarchy of needs” as expressed in the theories of needs by Maslow (1970), the needs that motivate the individual’s actions operate hierarchically in of their intensity and effect (Popper and Zakkai, 1994). The less secure people feel in the organization and the more anxiety they experience, the stronger the desire for leadership that can provide “solutions” of psychological security (Kets De Vries, 1989). On the other hand, genuine charisma is connected with something “new''. In extraordinary situations this “new'' issue calls forth a charismatic, authoritarian structure so that charisma, at least temporarily, leads to actions, movements, and events which are out of the ordinary routine and outside the sphere of everyday life (Marjosola and Takala, 2000). The charismatic leader’s approval or disapproval becomes an important commodity (Nadler and Tushman, 1990). Less secure followers under an environment of insecurity become a pure dependent on the leader, or blind follower (Schruijer and Vansina, 1999). Blind followership and follower acceptance of the directed course of action under the influence of charisma may not lead to sustainable change. In due course, in the presence of a strong leader, people may become hesitant to disagree or come into conflict with the leader, but this may in turn

lead

to

stifling

conformity

(Nadler

and

Tushman,

1990).

Such

now

resistant managers often attempt to put up an appearance of ing the change project while actual behavior remains unchanged (Simons, 1999). Authenticity is particularly relevant in the times of radical change. In these situations there is a temptation to live ‘inauthentically’ because change widens the moral gap between individual responsibility for freedom and autonomy and social responsibility to

- 12 -

Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

follow the shared norms of the community (Heidegger, 1962). Characteristics of authentic leaders identified by Shamir and Eilam (2005) propose that authentic leaders are true to themselves, rather than conforming to the expectations of others; they are motivated by personal convictions, rather than to attain status, honors or other personal benefits; they are originals and not copies and their action is based on their personal values and convictions. Authentic leaders are people with high integrity, with a deep sense of purpose and committed to their core values (George, 2003). Leaders with “strong integrity” are characterized by “internal consistency” which promotes acting in concert with values that respect the rights and interests of others (Howell and Avolio, 1992). Individuals who are “in tune” with their basic nature and clearly and accurately see themselves and their lives. Because fully functional persons are unencumbered by other’s expectations for them, they can make more sound personal choices (Avolio and Gardner, 2005). Leaders who lead by example in fostering healthy ethical climates characterized by transparency, trust, integrity and high moral standards are authentic leaders - who are not true only to themselves, but lead others by helping them to likewise (Gardner et al., 2005). Authentic transformational leaders are concerned with the welfare of others, because they believe every individual has dignity and moral standing (Michie and Gooty, 2005). Proposition – IX: Blind followers under the influence of charisma or in the situation of insecurity follow leader’s directive which may not lead to sustainable organization change. Proposition – X: Authenticity involves strong integrity and internal consistency which can help transformational leader make sound choice of the directions suggested to followers for their adoption and institutionalization.

Limitations and Future research In this article I have explored only the charisma dimension of a transformational leader which has scope for manipulation. Other dimensions as proposed by Bass (1985) intellectual stimulation and individual consideration have been not discussed. Both of these dimensions can also be studied to explore the scope of manipulation.

- 13 -

Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

Further, I have considered only transformational leader in this article as leader during time of change. Eisenbach (1999) proposed that certain transformational qualities are uniquely appropriate for leading certain types of change. For example, transformational leadership qualities are better for non-routine change (Bass, 1985). Marjosola and Takala (2000) proposed that there is a close relationship that charisma has to the cultural context of the time. The evocation of pure charisma and charismatic leadership always leads away from the everyday world; it rejects or transcends routine life Therefore, charisma as a leadership quality can be more appropriate at the time of radical change. In turn, this article by focusing only on the charisma dimension of a transformational leader has limited itself to radical and large-scale change. Further studies can be carried out to explore the transformational leadership behaviour beyond radical change.

Conclusion Leading for change is not only about adoption of the “new”, but it is more important that the “new” has been institutionalized so that change becomes sustainable. The times of evolving change require leaders with a stable philosophy of the self, as well as of others in the organization (Novicevic et al., 2006). Transformational leaders have been strongly associated with bringing about successful changes in the organization. But in today’s turbulent times leader authenticity becomes salient because the continuity of organizations as social systems is threatened by multiple discrepancies among leader responsibilities toward the self, toward the follower and toward other stakeholders (Badracco, 1992). To sustain change the manipulative aspect of transformational leader that originates from its charisma dimension should be minimized. Authenticity in leaders could be one such characteristic that has the potential to overcome the scope of manipulation by virtue of it being “true to oneself” and “true to others”. Kerfoot (2006) noted that there is leadership, and then there is authentic leadership. If you are not willing to engage from your heart, to ionately work to create a greater quality of work life for front-line staff every day, and to push yourself to the ultimate limit to make that happen, you might be a leader, but you will not be perceived as an authentic leader.

- 14 -

Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

References Avolio, B.J., and Gardner, W.L., (2005). Authentic Leadership Development: Getting to the Root of Positive From of Leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (2005), 315-338. Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G. and Field, H.S. (1999). Making Change Permanent: a model for institutionalizing change interventions. Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 12, 97-128. Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G. and Massholder, K.W. (1993). Creating Readiness for Organizational Change. Human Relations, Vol. 46, No. 6, 681-703. Badracco, J. (1992). Business Ethics: Four Spheres of Executive Responsibility. California Management Review, 34:3 (spring), 64-79. Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY. Bass, B.M. (1990), Bass and Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications, 3rd ed., Free Press, New York, NY. Bass, B.M. and Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character and authentic transformational leadership behaviour. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 181-218. Bernard, C. (1938). The Functions of the Executives. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Bernard, C. (1958). Elementary Conditions of Business Moral. California Management Review, 1(1), 1-13. Charbonneaue, D. (2004). Influence tactics and perceptions of transformational leadership. The Leadership and Organization Development Journal Vol. 25, No. 7, 2004 565-576. Clement, R.W. (1994). Culture, Leadership, and Power: The Key to Organizational Change. Business Horizons, January-February, 1994, 33-39. Eisenbach, R., Watson, K. and Pillai, R. (1999). Transformational leadership in the context of organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1999, 80-88. Etzioni, A. (1968). Basic Human Needs, Alienation And Inauthenticity. American Sociological Review, 33: 87-885. Gardner, W.L., Avolio, B.J., Luthans, F., May, D.R. and Walumbwa, F. (2005). “Can you see the real me”? A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (2005), 343-372. George, B. (2003). Authentic Leadership: Rediscovering the Secrets to Creating Lasting Values. Jossey-Bass.

- 15 -

Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2005). Managing Authenticity. Harvard Business Review, 83(12), 85-94. Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder & S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of Positive Psychology: 382-394, London: Oxford University Press. Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time, T. Macguire and E. Robinson (Trans.), New York: Harer & Row. Holt, D., Self, D., Thal, A. and Lo S. (2003). Facilitating Organization Change: a test of leadership strategies. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 24/5 (2003), 262-272. Howell, J.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership: Submission or liberation?, The Executive, 6, 43-52. Jowett, G. and O’Donnell, V. (1992). Propganda and Persuation, Sage, London. Karlene, K. (2006). Authentic Leadership. Nursing Economic$, March-April 2006, Vol. 24, No. 2, 116-117. Kernis, M.H., (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 1-26. Kets De Vries, M. (1989). Prisoners of Leadership. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Kotter, J.P. (1995). Leading Change: why transformational efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, March/April, 1995, 59-67. Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (1992). Ethical leaders: an essay about being in love, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 11, No. 5, 479-84. Manz, C., Bastien, D. and Hostager, T. (1991). Executive Leadership During Organizational Change: A Bi-Cycle Model. Human Resource Planning, Vol. 14, No. 4, 275-287. Marjosola, I.A. and Takala, T. (2000). Charismatic leadership, manipulation and the complexity of organizational life. Journal of Workplace Learning: Employee Counselling Today, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2000, 146-158. Maslow, A.H. (1970). Motivation and Personality. 1st edition 1954, Harper & Row, New York, NY. May, D., Chan, A., Hodges, T. and Avolio, B. (2003). Developing the Moral Component of Authentic Leadership. Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 32, No. 3, 247-260. Michie, S. and Gooty, J. (2005). Values, emotions and authenticity: Will the real leader please stand up? The Leadership Quarterly 16 (2005): 441-457. Nadler, D. and Tushman M. (1990). Beyond the Charismatic Leader: Leadership and Organizational Change. California Management Review, Winter, 1990, 77-97.

- 16 -

Kumar, Ajay/March 2007

Novicevic, M., Harvey, M., Buckley, R., Brown, J. A. and Evans, R. (2006). Authentic Leadership: A Historical Perspective. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 2006, Vol. 13, No. 1, 64-76. Novicevic, M., Buckley, R. and Brown J. A. (2005). Barnard on conflicts of responsibility: Implications for today’s perspectives on transformational and authentic leadership. Management Decision, 2005, Vol. 43, No. 10, 1396-1409. Pianalato, M. (2003). Resuscitation of a moral ideal. In Richard Lee (Ed.), Contemporary Ethical Theory, 218-230. Popper, M. and Zakkai, E. (1994). Transactional, Charismatic and Transformational Leadership: Conditions Conducive to their Predominance. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 15, No. 6, 1994, 3-7. Ryan, L. and Scott, W. (1995). Ethics and Organization Reflection: The Rockefeller Foundation and postwar moral deficits 1942-54. Academy of Management Review, 202 (2), 438-461. Shamir, B. and Eilam, G. (2005). “What is your story?: A life-stories approach to authentic leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (2005), 315-338. Schruijer, S. and Vansina, L. (1999). Leadership and organizational Change: An Introduction. European Journal of Work and Organization Psychology, 1999, 8 (1), 1-8. Simons, T. (1999). Behavioral integrity as a critical ingredient for transformational leadership. Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1999, 89-104. Tyler, T.R. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy: a relational perspective on voluntary deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 1, No. 4, 32345. Tyler, T.R. and Degoey, P. (1996). Trust in organizational authorities: the influence of motive attributions on willingness to accept decisions', in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 331-56. Tyler, T.R. and Cremer, D.D. (2005). Process-based leadership: Fair procedure and reactions to organizational change. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (2005), 529-545. Terry, R.W. (1993), Authentic Leadership: Courage in Action, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA Tichy, N.M. and Devanna, M.A. (1990). The Transformational Leader, John Wiley, New York, NY. Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: a review of theory and research. Management, Vol. 15, No. 2, 251-89. Yukl, G. (2002), Leadership in Organizations, 5th ed., Pearson Education.

- 17 -

Journal of