Running head: CULTURAL INFLUENCE AND LEADERSHIP
Cultural Influence on Authentic Leadership in Thailand
Iratrachar Amornpipat
Aviation Personnel Development Institution, Bangkok, Thailand
Gary N. McLean
McLean Global Consulting, Inc.
Corresponding Author:
Iratrachar Amornpipat
Aviation Personnel Development Institution,
Bangkok, Thailand 10500.
[email protected]
Words: 5,618
Refereed Paper
Copyright © 2016 Iratrachar Amornpipat & Gary N. McLean
Abstract
This paper presents an examination of the concept of authentic
leadership and discusses the influences of collectivism culture, particularly in
Thailand, on the authentic leader’s behaviors. Walumbwa et al.’s (2008)
authentic leadership theory is used as a fundamental concept to explore
differences and similarities in leadership between western and eastern
cultural contexts. The resulting Thai model and Walumbwa et al.’s (2008)
authentic leadership models are the same in four dimensions: self-awareness,
relational transparency, balanced processing, and internalized moral
perspective. However, the effect of being collectivist in Thailand suggests an
additional dimension of authentic leadership, namely, relational harmony. This
paper discusses an agenda for future research and practical implications to
develop the existing theory and authentic leaders in the Thai workplace.
Keywords: Authentic leadership, collectivist culture, Thai leaders,
Thailand
The importance of soft skills, such as cross-cultural sensitivity, written
communication skills, and leadership, leads to extensive attention from HR
professionals in responding to global challenges (SHRM, 2014). The
challenges are based on “a shift from a manufacturing to a service economy,
shifting preferences in markets, demographic changes, terrorism, mergers
and acquisitions, globalisation, technology, generational changes in employee
and employers’ expectations, political issues, military, and corporate ethical
scandals” (Avolio & Walumbwa, 2006, pp. 273-274). In addition, an increase
in unethical behaviors in the midst of corporate and societal challenges has
led to the need for positive organizational leadership more today than in any
other time period (Cooper, Scanduru, & Schriesheim, 2005). As a result of
such dishonesty, researchers and practitioners have searched for factors
influencing unethical practices and behaviors within organizations (Lagan,
2007). The rapid changes and challenges mentioned above then call for a
radically different form of leadership (Avolio & Walumbwa, 2006).
Future workplaces will need to emphasize the role of leaders as key
persons in creating an environment that is collaborative, authentic,
personalized, and innovative (Meister & Willyerd, 2010). Leaders will need
effectively to engage diverse employees and manage a global workforce.
Therefore, the current roles of leaders will have to shift. HR professionals will
also need to change their role in accordance with such changes. They will
need to act as change agents in identifying and developing the next
generation of effective leaders to help sustain organizations in today’s fierce
global competition (Lux, 2012).
Interestingly, studies have indicated that managers who use coercion,
dominance, manipulation, and dependence are less effective than leaders
who are ethical and charismatic (Block, 1993; Lux, 2012; Walumbwa et al.,
2010). Thus, a new brand of leaders is emerging, and their functions need to
be relevant to future changes and expectations. They must be able to
convince their people to realize the importance of developing effective
organizational cultures and confront complex situations along with making
their organizations more transparent to all stakeholders (Roberts & Hirsch,
2005). Such leaders have strong values and integrity to motivate employees
to achieve superior performance by building enduring organizations and
shareholder value (Avolio & Walumbwa, 2006; George, 2003). The new brand
of leadership can be labeled as “authentic” (Avolio & Walumbwa, 2006, p.
275). This type of leader is believed to have the ability to:
Work with diverse organisational and national cultures to achieve
common points of integration;
Estimate accurately the combined and integrated value of intangible
and tangible assets;
Understand how to link people who work in different areas, have
different cultures by utilising the advanced informational technology;
Envision where key points of strategic integration will need to
emerge, and how to lead an organisation to those points. (Avolio &
Walumbwa, 2006, p. 275)
Authentic leadership could thus make fundamental differences in
organizations by helping employees find meaning in their work through
increasing their self awareness before taking any action and promoting
transparent relationships and decision making processes. They may build
trust, commitment, and perceptions of ethicality among followers (Avolio,
Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004). Hence, the ultimate goal of HR
agents is to train and develop leaders who will create positive work
environments and conduct business in an ethical and responsible manner
(Lagan, 2007). However, to study and design an effective intervention to
develop authentic leaders without first understanding these components may
not lead to success. It is essential to begin with a preliminary step to
understand the construct of authentic leadership, especially by reviewing
existing authentic leadership theories and research, although most are limited
to a particular context (i.e., the U.S., China, Kenya) or are qualitative studies
lacking generalization (Gardner, Cogliser, Davis, & Dickens, 2011; Lagan,
2007). Thus, cultural influence must be taken into account in further study.
Problem Statement
Authentic leadership could make fundamental differences in
organisations by helping employees to find meaning in their work through
increasing their self awareness before taking any action, and promoting
transparent relationships and decision-making processes (Avolio, Gardner,
Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004). Although the concept of authentic
leadership was originally derived from a western perspective, some research
identified that culture may construct different personality traits and lead to
culture specific behaviours (Klenke, 2005). Hence, the purpose of this study
was to conceptualise the constructs of authentic leadership as affected by the
contextual influence of Thai culture in which different culture specific
behaviours may be found between Thai authentic leadership and existing
theory.
Significance of the Problem
The findings of this study will broaden the understanding of authentic
leadership theory in a Thai cultural context that provides challenging
opportunities for future empirical studies to confirm or reject the
conceptualisation of Thai authentic leadership proposed in this study.
Additionally, from a practical viewpoint, the model of Thai authentic leadership
may be used to design HRD interventions in order to promote ethical
workplaces.
Theoretical Constructs
The significant constructs that underlie this paper are explained and
defined below.
Authenticity
A philosophical meaning of authenticity was first advocated by Greek
storics, as a moral response to declining civic and religious values
(Baumeister, 1987). This term has been articulated in terms of individual
virtues and ethical choices, while psychological meanings of authenticity have
been referred to in individual traits/states and identifies (Novicevic et al.,
2006). A construct of authenticity is captured in its timeless admonition to be
true to yourself and is reflected in many philosophical discussions of what
constitutes authenticity (Harter, 2002; Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002).
Drawing from the positive psychology literature, authenticity can be defined as
“owning one’s personal experiences, be they thoughts, emotions, needs,
wants, preferences, or beliefs, processes captured by the injunction to know
‘oneself’ “ and “further implies that one acts in accord with the true self,
expressing oneself in ways that are consistent with inner thoughts and
feelings” (Harter, 2002, p. 382).
In recent years, the concept of authenticity has been clarified and
refined through theoretical developments and empirical research by social
psychologists (Kernis, 2003, Ryan & Deci, 2001, 2003). A more empirically
grounded perspective on authenticity is provided by Kernis (2003) as part of a
large theory on the nature of optimal self-esteem. He defines authenticity as
“the unobstructed operation of one’s true, or core, self in one’s daily
enterprise” (p. 1). Moreover, Kernis and Goldman (2006) conclude that the
review of historical literature of authenticity reflects four central themes:
“authentic functioning of people’s (1) self-understanding, (2) openness to
objectively recognising their ontological realities (e.g. evaluating their
desirable and undesirable self-aspects), (3) actions, and (4) orientation
towards interpersonal relationships” (p.284). These themes are consistent
with their conceptualization of authenticity as including four key components:
“(1) self-awareness (i.e., knowledge and trust in one’s thoughts, feelings,
motives and values); (2) unbiased processing of self-relevant information (i.e.,
objectivity about and acceptance of one’s positive and negative attributes); (3)
authentic action (i.e., acting based on one’s true preference, values, and
needs rather than merely acting to please others, secure rewards, or avoid
punishments); and (4) authentic relations (i.e., achieving and valuing
truthfulness and openness in one’s close relationships)” (Gardner, Cogliser,
Davis, Dickens, 2011, p. 1121). The multi-component conceptualization of
authenticity has then provided the theoretical foundation for several theories
of authentic leadership (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005;
Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005; Spitzuller & Ilies, 2010; Walumbwa et al.,
2008) as described in the following section.
Authentic Leadership
The concept of authentic leadership stems from social psychological
research on the construct of authenticity. Authentic leadership has many
different definitions, and been advanced over the years (Gardner et al., 2011).
The most wildly used theory for authentic leadership is that proposed
by Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, and Peterson’s 2008 (Gardner et
al., 2011). This theory has emerged over the last several years from the
intersection of leadership, ethics, positive organizational behaviors, and
academic literature (Walumbwa et al., 2008). The definition of authentic
leadership could be
a pattern of leader behaviour that draws upon and promotes both
positive psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate, to
foster greater self-awareness, and internalized moral perspective,
balance processing of information, and relational transparency on the
part of leaders working with followers, fostering positive self-
development. (Walumbwa et al., 2008, p. 94).
The four constructs authentic leadership includes self-awareness,
balanced processing, relational transparency, and internalized moral
perspective. The Walumwa et al.’s (2008) authentic leadership concept is also
operationalized four constructs of authentic leadership and developed the
measure (ALQ), which later has been adopted in many studies across
cultures. The four dimensions of authentic leadership are as follows:
Self-awareness: demonstrating an understanding of how one derives
and makes meaning of the world and how that meaning-making process
impacts the way one views himself or herself over time. It also refers to
showing an understanding of one's strengths and weaknesses and the
multifaceted nature of the self, which includes gaining insight into the self
through exposure to others, and being cognizant of one's impact on other
people (Walumbwa et al., 2008, p. 95).
Relational transparency: presenting one's authentic self (as opposed
to fake or distorted self) to others. Such behavior promotes trust through
disclosures that involve openly sharing information and expressions of one's
true thoughts and feelings while trying to minimize displays of inappropriate
emotions (Walumbwa et al., 2008, p. 95).
Balanced processing: showing that they objectively analyze all
relevant data before coming to a decision. Such people also solicit views that
challenge their deeply held positions (Walumbwa et al., 2008, p. 95-96).
Internalized moral perspective: refers to an internalized and
integrated form of self regulation. The sort of self-regulation is guided by
internal moral standards and values versus group, organizational, and societal
pressures, and it results in expressed decision making and behavior that is
consistent with these internalized values (Walumbwa et al., 2008, p. 95).
Cultural Contingency
Klenke (2005) said that leadership is shaped by context, so contextual
factors set the boundaries within leaders and followers’ interaction, which
determines their actions, behaviors, attitudes, emotions, and spiritual choices.
This statement emphasizes the importance of cultural contexts underlining
leadership theories. Most definitions or concepts of authentic leadership have
been developed and validated primarily in the United States and other
western countries. An explanation of authentic leadership behaviors may not
be relevant in other cultures (Zhang, Everett, Elkin, & Cone, 2012). Recently,
there have been several efforts to conduct cross-cultural research related to
authentic leadership, using samples with different cultural backgrounds,
especially in Asia. Zhang et al.’s (2012) study contributed to developing
authentic leadership theory, from sociological and philosophical perspectives.
They used a case study methodology in a Chinese context. They found that,
in this Chinese context, authentic leaders concentrate on being authentic to
the self, which is consistent with western literature; however, they place
greater emphasis on being authentic to the context of daily practice. Chinese
leaders achieve self-authenticity through achieving authentic identity in
relationship. Likewise, Khilji, Keilson, Shakir, and Shrestha (2015)
investigated how authentic leadership is manifested in the South Asian
context. The authours collected data by interviewing 14 leaders from India,
Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. The results show that authentic leadership in
South Asia is slightly different from the west. They found that authentic
leadership there is culturally relevant and emerges as a multi-dimensional
construct with five components: (1) self-concept; (2) follower development; (3)
organizational outcomes; (4) culture; and (5) contextual knowledge. Variation
exists because culture has come to the forefront in addressing issues of
human diversity in psychological processes and performance (Saetang,
2004).
The core of culture is formed by values (Hofestede, 2001). Culture has
been defined in many ways. One well-known definition of culture defined by
Hofestede (2001) is “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes
the members of one group or category of people from another” (p. 9). His
study about the influence of cultural values on organizational dynamics
revealed that culture played an important element in leadership concepts.
Hofestede (2001) categorized culture into six dimensions–power distance;
individualism vs collectivism; uncertainty avoidance; masculinity vs femininity;
long- vs short-term orientation; and indulgence vs restraint. Thailand is
regarded as high power distance, collectivism, uncertainty avoidance,
femininity, short-term orientation, and restraint (Hofestede, 2001). Such
cultural dimensions influence behaviors of leaders. For example, in high
power distance societies, the role of leaders was perceived to be a controller
rather than a colleague, referred to as a superior-inferior concept, which
dominates Thai society (Rohitratana, 1998; Thanasankit & Corbitt, 2000).
With high levels of uncertainty avoidance and short-term orientation, leaders
focus on short-term strategic planning and avoid future uncertainty by
implementing strict rules, laws, policies, and regulations (Bagchi, Harter, &
Peterson, 2004; Erumban & Jong, 2006; Laosethakul & Boulton, 2007).
The Influence of Thai Culture on Leadership
Authentic leadership in a Thai context may be fundamentally different
from Walumbwa et al.’s (2008) concept. The following section provides a
review of literature about the influence of culture on authentic leadership in
Thailand.
Dimensions of Authentic Leadership in the Thai Context
Yukongdi (2010) revealed that Thai employees preferred leaders who
are cognizant of others’ feelings. Leaders understand their followers by being
considerate. Nevertheless, consideration must be given within unique Thai
cultural characteristics (Komin, 1990a), such as being benevolent and
paternalistic, consistent with the high power distance and family-oriented
culture of Thailand (Gupta, Surie, Javidam, & Chhokar, 2002). Additionally,
the GLOBE study found that charismatic, team-oriented, and participative
leaders are the top three most effective characteristics for Thailand (Gupta et
al., 2002). These leaders who have a high level of integrity are deemed to be
effective. They also delegate responsibilities based on employee strengths
and weaknesses. Such behaviors of Thai leaders are consistent with self-
awareness, one of Walumbwa’s (2008) authentic leadership constructs.
Further, as Thailand is a collectivist country (Hobstede, 2001), this
society favours in-groups at the expense of out-groups (Davis & Ruhe, 2003).
Leaders are expected to be open to negotiations and ideas from many
sources and have to be capable diplomats so they do not exclude any group
members (Gupta et al., 2002). Such leaders also allow for input from others
before coming to a decision, depending on whether in-groups are affected by
the decision. These behaviors are seemingly consistent with the balanced
processing construct of Walumbwa et al.’s (2008) authentic leadership.
In addition, being clean and transparent may be a new concept to
influence Thai leadership excellence as this dimension has been neglected in
Thai leadership literature. For example, in Yukongdi’s (2010) study, her
findings of preferred leadership styles for Thai employees involved only
supportive characteristics, such as being consultative, participative, and
patemalistic, while being ethical was not included. Also, in Selvarah, Meyer,
and Donovan (2013) research, they discovered that excellent leadership in
Thai organisations is mostly mediated by culture-based construct of
environmental harmony, respect, and authority, yet the dimension of ethics
was not found. Moreover, Virakul and McLean (2012) examined leadership
development and leadership development programs in three Thai
organisations. In their findings, there was only one company that stated that
business ethics and employees’ code of conduct values were effective
competencies of leaders, whereas the other two mainly focused on innovation
and high performance.
Since 1997, Thailand has attempted to promote transparency and
accountability as tools to gain stability and effectiveness of organizations
(Pongsudhirak, 2008). The Office of Thai Civil Service Commission (OCSC),
as a central agency on public human resource management of Thailand, aims
to enhance integrity and good governance in both public and business
sectors. OCSC stresses the necessity of establishing coordination and
sharing of related information with individuals and groups involved within
organizations (OCSCknowledge, 2014). With pressure from the media and
public sector agencies like OCSC, being transparent is a new key
competence in Thailand’s recent leadership qualities (OCSCknowledge,
2014).
Thai employees are likely to devote themselves to work for a leader
whom they like and respect. The keys are the leader’s personality and
appropriate actions based on kindness and non-aggressiveness (Selvarajah
et al., 2013). This is similar to Komin (1990b) who found that straight-forward,
ambitious, and aggressive personalities, such as found in the west, are not
acceptable and are unlikely to be successful in Thai organizations. Overall,
the combination of being transparent, open, and aware of inappropriate
expressions is consistent with the relational transparency construct of
Walumbwa et al.’s (2008) authentic leadership.
The internalized moral perspective construct of Walumbwa’s (2008)
authentic leadership focuses on an internal moral standard of leaders
influencing their ethical actions. Ethical attitudes are likely to be culturally and
organizationally bound (Cottrill, 2011). This construct involves people’s
cognitive, affective, and behavioral predispositions to respond to issues and
activities involving social standards for what is morally proper and virtuous.
Franke and Nedler (2008) suggested that national culture, organizational
culture, personal religious, beliefs, and economic pressures normally
influence moral perspectives. Komin (1995) suggested that religio-psysical
orientation is a major value held by Thai people. In the Thai hierarchical
society, social orders depend on merit (Boon) and virtue (Kwam-dee),
reflecting Buddist beliefs (Hank, 1962). Buddhism is the common religion in
the country and has a great influence on Thai values, especially on moral
perspectives (Thakur & Walsh, 2013). Buddhism emphasizes that all
dissatisfaction stems from the human tendency for desire and the resulting
aversion from disappointment and impatience. It advocates a middle path
eschewing extremes of conduct and promotes the use of reason instead of
the performance of religious rites (Gupta et al., 2002). Moreover, karma
(cause and effect where intent and actions of an individual influence the future
of the individual) is also a value strongly held among Thais as believed by
Hindu and Buddhist worldviews (Kamoche, 2000; Pathmanand, 2001).
Religious beliefs and values formulate the ethical theory that Thai people hold
to be accountable for their action (Gupta et al., 2002). Thus, Thai leaders are
expected to hold high moral standards and behave ethically based on their
religious beliefs in order to gain respect and faith from their followers (Hank,
1962).
In Thailand, authentic leadership is a relative newcomer to leadership
literature. Sangmookda (2011) conducted a study to determine the
conceptualization of authentic leadership and developed an authentic
leadership measurement scale for basic education institutions administrators
in Thalandi. She defined authentic leaders as “those who are aware of their
strengths and weaknesses, and act accordingly to their self-moral standard”
(p. 85). If they are visionary and transparent, their followers will have trust in
and respect for them. Five dimensions encompass her authentic leadership
conception: (1) self-awareness; (2) internalized moral perspective; (3)
relational transparency; (4) balanced processing; and (5) learning from the
future.
While the Thai authentic leadership measure originated in Thailand, the scale
might not be applicable to different organizational contexts, as her scale is
limited to the basic educational context. Also, one of her authentic leadership
constructs, learning from the future, i.e., being visionary, which is not
consistent with other studies that pointed out that Thai leaders are more short-
term oriented (Bangchi et al., 2004; Erumban & Jong, 2006; Hofstede, 2001;
Laosethankul & Boulton, 2007).
Many studies on Thai values and cultures have shown some common
shared trait behaviors of Thai people, promoting harmonious relationships
(Boonsathorn, 2007; Fieg, 1989; Gupta et al., 2002; Hank, 1962; Komin,
1990a, 1990b, 1995; Ledegerwood &Un, 2003; Selvarajah et al., 2013;
Taylor, 1996; Yokongdi, 2010). This particular behavior highlights having
respectful relationships with others; it derives from the concept of face-saving
(Komin, 1995). Such a concept enforces behaviors between employers and
employees (Deephuengton, 1992; Hank,1962; Selvarajah et al., 2013). Fieg’s
(1989) and Boonsathorn’s (2007) studies show that Thai people value smooth
interpersonal relationships that influence their views to see conflict as a
negative phenomenon. Perhaps this is because Thailand has a collectivistic
culture, resulting in a lack of assertiveness and avoiding confrontation
(Boonsathorn, 2007; Gupta et al., 2002; Quek, Khudson-Martin, Rue, &
Alabiso, 2010). These authors have suggested that leaders with a strong
value of relationship leads to a harmonious, positive, and ethical atmosphere
for broad range of stakeholders, leading to enhanced excellence. The
intention of promoting positive psychological capacities and an ethical
atmosphere among in-group members by Thai leaders are congruent with the
authentic leaders’ behaviors characterized by Walumbwa et al. (2008).
Therefore, promoting harmonious relationship behavior could be added as
another aspect of authentic leadership in the Thai culture.
Consequently, the Thai authentic leadership could be conceptualised
into five dimensions consisting of self-awareness; balanced processing;
relational transparency; internalized moral perspective; and relational
harmony. The descriptions are explained below.
Self-Awareness. This reflects leaders who demonstrate positive
modeling by understanding and accepting values, feelings, identity and goals
of themselves and others. They are also aware of the impact from their
decision making on others because they have sympathy for other’s feelings,
values, and strengths and weaknesses as it is driven by benevolence
manners (Metta: เมตตา).
Balanced processing. It reflects leaders’ authenticity through
objectively analyzing relevant information through a balanced equitable social
process without bias before making decisions. The leaders allow others’
objective input though such input may challenge their own perspective.
Relational transparency. It reflects leaders who share information and
communicate openly with others while revealing true thoughts with non-
aggressive emotional expression and appropriate manner. They also
demonstrate genuine positive interest in others in which trust, respect, and
identification with them are emerged.
Internalised moral perspective. This refers to leaders as being self-
regulated and being congruent with moral integrity between values and
actions. It includes being self-disciplined and not allowing external influences
to sway authenticity, which lead to negative future consequences (Bad-
Karma).
Relational harmony. This means leaders who demonstrate respectful
behaviours to others as being humane. They build positive psychological
conditions and ethical climates through promoting harmonious relationships
among their multiple in-groups.
In summary, culture affects authentic leadership inThailand. Thai
leaders who are authentic reflect behaviors that are consistent with the four
constructs of Walumbwa et al.’s (2008) authentic leadership concept.
Moreover, they are also consistent with the authentic leadership definition.
This leads to the following proposition:
Authentic leadership in Thailand will consist of five distinct constructs:
self-awareness, balanced processing, relational transparency, internalised
moral perspective, and relational harmony (see Figure 1).
Figure 1 Conceptual Framework for Thai Authentic Leadership
Cultural Influences
Hierarchy
Collectivism
Thai Authentic Leaders
Self-Awareness • Be aware of their decisions on others • Have sympathy for others • Understand others’ strengths and weaknesses
Balanced Processing • Analyze information through balanced social process • Allow different opinions/inputs from others
Relational Transparency
• Share information openly with involved parties with respect • Minimise displays of inappropriate emotions when conflicts
occur
Internalized Moral Perspective
• Behave ethically that is consistent with self-regulated values based on religious belief
• Remain high moral standards although being pressured by external influences
Relational Harmony
• Value smooth interpersonal relationship to avoid conflict and confrontation
• Promote harmonious relationship within groups by building positive psychological condition and ethical climate
Religious Influences
Buddhism
Hinduism
Recommendations for Theory and Future Research
As this study provides a conceptualization of Thai authentic leadership,
much work needs to be done in terms of theory building and developing valid
measurement scales. For the purpose of developing a measure of authentic
leadership, future research should conduct an empirical study to confirm or
reject the present proposition. It may enhance generalizability of the concept
that is more indigenous to Thailand.
Further, there are various effects from different types of leadership
style on followers’ outcomes, such as skills and knowledge, attitudes, and
behaviors (Sorod, 1995). The influence of authentic leadership on followers
may then be investigated empirically to provide results that could be helpful
for implementing leadership development across Thai organizations.
Finally, similar research might be conducted in other Asian countries
with a similar collectivist contextual culture, especially those involved in
the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) context.
Recommendations for Practice
From a practical point of view, the concept of the Thai authentic
leadership model could be a fundamental concept for HRD professionals in
order to develop HRD interventions that may be adopted as a means to shed
light on influences of leaders’ unethical behaviour on employees within
organisations. Such HRD activities could include establish rule-based and
valued based programs to build an ethical culture workplace, and develop
leadership ethics-related programs (Wuttaphan, Thimthong, Seriwat, &
McLean, 2015).
Conclusion
In an effort to develop a concept of authentic leadership in Thailand,
culture should be taken into account to explain the constructs of a
dimensional framework for authentic leadership. Based on Walumba et al.’s
(2008) four authentic leadership constructs of self-awareness, balanced
processing, relational transparency, and internalised moral perspective.
However, Thai leadership literature suggests that relational harmony is an
additional dimension of Thai authentic leadership. Future work should aim to
provide a starting definition and then developing an authentic leadership
measurement scale for Thailand.
References
Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2006). Authentic leadership: Moving HR
leaders to a higher level. Research in personnel and human resources
management, 25, 273-304.
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R.
(2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic
leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 15,
801–823.
Bagchi, K., Hart, P., and Peterson, M. F. (2004) National Culture and
Information Technology Product Adoption. Journal of Global Information
Technology Management, 7(4): 29-46.
Baumeister, R. F. (1987). How the self became a problem: A psychological
review of historical research. Journal of personality and social
psychology,52(1), 163-176.
Boonsathorn, W. (2007). Understanding conflict management styles of Thais
and Americans in multinational corporations in Thailand. International
Journal of Conflict Management, 18(3), 196-221.
Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Cooper, C. D., Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2005). Looking forward
but learning from our past: Potential challenges to developing authentic
leadership theory and authentic leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3),
475-493.
Cottrill, K. R. (2011). Antecedents and outcomes of inclusion: exploring
authentic leadership, organizational climate for ethics, organization-based
self-esteem, and organizational citizenship behaviors (Unpublished
Doctoral’s thesis). Alliant International University, Los Angeles, California,
USA.
Davis, J. H., & Ruhe, J. A. (2003). Perceptions of country corruption:
Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(4), 275-288.
Deephuengton, P. (1992). Politeness in Thai: strategies of refusing and
disagreeing (Unpublished Doctoral’s thesis). University of Kansas,
Lawrence, Kansas, USA.
Erumban, A. A. and Jong, S. B. (2006) Cross-country differences in ICT
adoption: a consequence of culture?. Journal of World Business, 41(4):
302-314.
Fieg, J., & Mortlock, E. (1989). A common core: Thais and Americans.
Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Franke, G. R., & Nadler, S. S. (2008). Culture, economic development, and
national ethical attitudes. Journal of business research, 61(3), 254-264.
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005).
“Can you see the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and
follower development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 343-372.
Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011).
Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. The
Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1120-1145.
George, W. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to
creating lasting value. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gupta, V., Surie, G., Javidan, M., & Chhokar, J. (2002). Southern Asia cluster:
where the old meets the new?. Journal of world business, 37(1), 16-27.
Hanks, L. M. (1962). Merit and power in the Thai social order. American
Anthropologist, 1247-1261.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviours,
institutions, and organisations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder, & S. Lopez (Eds), Handbook
of positive psychology (pp. 382-394). Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level
relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and
business outcomes: a meta-analysis. Journal of applied
psychology, 87(2), 268.
Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and
eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader–follower outcomes. The
Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 373-394.
Kamoche, K. (2000). From boom to bust: the challenges of managing people
in Thailand. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 11(2), 452-468.
Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-
esteem.Psychological Inquiry, 14(1), 1-26.
Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization
of authenticity: Theory and research. Advances in experimental social
psychology,38, 283-357.
Khilji, S. E., Keilson, B., Shakir, F. Y., & Shrestha, B. K. (2015). Self, follower,
organization and the context–a cross cultural view of authentic
leadership.South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, 4(1), 2-26.
Klenke, K, (2005). The internal theatre of the authentic leader: Integrating
cognitive, affective, conative and spiritual facets of authentic leadership.
In W. Gardner, B. Avolio, & F. Walumba (Eds.), Authentic leadership
theory and practice: Origins, effects and development: Vol. 3.
Monographs in Leadership and Management (pp. 155-182). New York:
Elsevier.
Komin, S., 1990a. Psychology of the Thai people: values and behavioral
patterns. Bangkok: National Institute of Development and Administration.
Komin, S., 1990b. Culture and work-related values in Thai organizations.
International journal of psychology, 25 (5–6), 681–704.
Komin, S. (1995). Cross-cultural management communication in Thailand,
Paper presented at the SEAMEO’s RELC Regional Seminar on Exploring
Language, Culture, and Literature in Language Learning, SEAMEO
Regional Language Center, Singapore, 17-19 April.
Lagan, T. E. (2007). Authentic leadership: Development of a four-dimensional
scale and identification of a nomological network (Unpublished Doctoral’s
thesis). The University at Albany, State University of New York, New
York, USA.
Laosethakul, K. & Boulton, W. (2007). Critical success factors for e-commerce
in Thailand: cultural and infrastructural influences. The Electronic Journal
on Information Systems in Developing Countries, 30(2), 1-22.
Ledgerwood, J., & Un, K. (2003). Global concepts and local meaning: human
rights and Buddhism in Cambodia. Journal of human rights, 2(4), 531-
549.
Lux, A. A. (2012). Follower’s perceptions of authentic leadership and their job
satisfaction: impact of ethnicity (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Auckland
University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Meister, C. J., & Willyerd, K. (2010). The 2020 workplace. New York: NY.
HarperCollins.
OCSCknowlege (2014). Ethics Promotion and Good Governance in Thai Civil Service,
Office of the Civil Service Commission (2014). Civil Service Personnel 2013. Retrieved
from
http://www.ocsc.go.th/ocsc/th/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3873:-
2555&catid=540:2013-03-19-02-24-53 (assessed 23 July 2015).
Pongsudhirak, T. (2008). Thailand since the coup. Journal of
Democracy, 19(4), 140-153.
Quek, K. M. T., Knudson-Martin, C., Rue, D., & Alabiso, C. (2010). Relational
harmony: A new model of collectivism and gender equality among
Chinese American couples. Journal of Family Issues, 31(3), 358-380.
Rohitratana, K. (1998). The role of Thai values in managing information
systems; a case study of implementing an MRP systems. In Proceedings
of the Fifth International Working Conference of IFIP WG (Vol. 9, pp. 188-
201).
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A
review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual review
of psychology, 52(1), 141-166.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2003). On assimilating identities to the self: A self-
determination theory perspective on internalization and integrity within
cultures. In M. R. Leary, & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and
identity (pp. 253-272). New York: Guilford Press.
Saetang, D. (2004). Development of a measure of transformational and
transactional leadership among public school principals in Thailand.
(Unpublished Doctoral’s thesis). University of Minnesota, MN, USA.
Sangmookda, S. (2011). The development of authentic leadership
measurement tools for basic education institution administrators
(Unpublished Doctoral’s thesis). Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok,
Thailand.
Selvarajah, C., Meyer, D., & Donovan, J. (2013). Cultural context and its
influence on managerial leadership in Thailand. Asia Pacific Business
Review,19(3), 356-380.
SHRM. (2014). Future insight: The top trends for 2014 according to SHRM’s
HR subject metter expert panels. Retrieved on 13 October, 2014, from
https://www.shrm.org/Research/Documents/13-
0724%202014%20Panel%20Trends%20Report%20v3.pdf
Sorod, Bung-On. (2012). Research methodology in human resource and
organisational development. Bangkok: School of human resource
development, National of Institute Development Administration. (in Thai).
Spitzmuller, M., & Ilies, R. (2010). Do they [all] see my true self? Leader's
relational authenticity and followers' assessments of transformational
leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 19(3), 304-332.
Taylor, C. (1996). A world consensus on human rights?. Dissent, 43, 16024.
Thakur, R., & Walsh, J. (2013). Characteristics of Thai Women Entrepreneurs:
A Case Study of SMEs Operating in Lampang Municipality Area. Journal
of Social and Development Sciences, 4(4), 174-181.
Thakur, R., & Walsh, J. (2013). Characteristics of Thai Women Entrepreneurs:
A Case Study of SMEs Operating in Lampang Municipality Area. Journal
of Social and Development Sciences, 4(4), 174-181.
Thanasankit, T., & Corbitt, B. (2000). Cultural context and its impact on
requirements elicitation in Thailand. The Electronic Journal of Information
Systems in Developing Countries, 1. 1-19.
Virakul, B., & McLean, G. N. (2012). Leadership development in selected
leading Thai companies. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(1), 6-22.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson,
S. J. (2008). Authentic Leadership: Development and Validation of a
Theory-Based Measure†. Journal of management, 34(1), 89-126.
Walumbwa, F. O., Wang, P., Wang, H., Schaubroeck, J., & Avolio, B. J.
(2010). Psychological processes linking authentic leadership to follower
behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(5), 901-914.
Wuttaphan, N., Thimthong, S., Seriwat, A., & McLean, G.N. (2015).
Conceptualizing employee unethical behaviour in organisations: How
HRD interventions can help. Proceedings of the 16th international
conference on human resource development research and practice
across Europe: Towards Evidence Based HRD Practice: Bridging the
Gap,Cork, Ireland, Edinburgh, (Stream: Strategic HRD and Performance
Learning)
Yukongdi, V. (2010). A study of Thai employees' preferred leadership style.
Asia pacific business review, 16(1-2), 161-181.
Zhang, H., Everett, A. M., Elkin, G., & Cone, M. H. (2012). Authentic
leadership theory development: theorizing on Chinese philosophy. Asia
Pacific Business Review, 18(4), 587-605.
