Understanding Authentic Leadership Theory From a HRD ... · development remains infrequent within...

RUNNING HEAD: Authentic Leadership and HRD

Understanding Authentic Leadership Theory From a HRD Perspective:

Steps Toward Developing Authentic Leadership Development Programs

By

Kristina Natt och Dag

Dr. Julia Storberg-Walker

North Carolina State University

Doctoral submission

Keywords: Authentic leadership, development, xxx

© Kristina Natt och Dag & Julia Storberg-Walker, 2014

Authentic Leadership and HRD

2

Abstract

Leadership is an important area of HRD. Leadership is furthermore a vast field besides a

lucrative million-dollar business (Raelin, 2004) and the link between theory and practice

is often missed. Scholars suggest traditional leadership theories do not equip leaders in

the 21st century organization and call for a paradigmatic shift (Higgs, 2003; O‟Brien &

Peterson, 2008). In line with this, scholars further suggest there is a need for more ethical

driven and holistic leadership approaches (Tubbs & Schulz, 2006; Kellerman, 2012).

Authentic Leadership Development has emerged and could be a promising theory to meet

the needs of leaders today. However, the question is if authentic leadership can be taught,

as it evolves mainly around deep knowledge of self, which may seem insufficient in the

context of challenges leaders face.

This conceptual paper explores the relevance of authentic leadership development in the

HRD-field and suggest that the distinction in this approach lies in the understanding of

the inner process and journey of self-discovery that the individual must be ready for if

authentic leadership is to become the powerful driver of organizational performance

based on positive aspects such as hope, efficacy, optimism and resilience that it in theory

could. This is a first step towards exploring that end.


3

Introduction

While HRD has for years been focused on developing the human element of

organizational life, histories of HRD (Human resource Development) have mostly

ignored leadership development (Swanson & Holton, 2009). Although contributions on

leadership have significantly increased the past two decades, scholarship on leadership

development remains infrequent within the four key journals of HRD. Further, of the

abundance of leadership theories, models, and frameworks in the scholarly and

practitioner literature, no one perspective has generated consensus on the „best‟ or most

appropriate for today‟s chaotic economic, environmental, and social environment

(Clarke, 2012). Consequently, a focus on leadership research or practice can be

idiosyncratic and research findings are often disconnected from practice (Higgs, 2003).

There is a need to develop research-based leadership development interventions in

HRD. By understanding the complexities of leadership in general and specific theories

in particular, HRD-professionals can be more effective in organizations. This paper is

one step towards that end, and its focus is on a relatively new understanding of

leadership, namely authentic leadership development (ALD). We believe that a focus on

authentic leadership is warranted because it builds from aspects that in theory would

drive performance based on motivation, optimism, hope and resilience. Research shows

that authentic leadership has the potential to positively increase followers‟ psychological

capital (Peterson, Walumbwa, Avolio, & Hannah, 2012) and increase followers‟

motivation and well-being.

Consequently, this paper presents a synthesis of the key scholarship of ALD,

combines it with the HRD literature on leadership and leadership development, and,


4

following Cooper, Scandura and Schriesheim‟s (2005) call for research, presents

preliminary findings or recommendations for how HRD faculty and practitioners can

develop authentic leaders in classrooms, communities, and societies. Cooperet al. (2005)

identified four important questions for future research, such as defining and measuring

the construct; determining the discriminant validity of the construct; identifying relevant

construct outcomes, and; ascertain whether authentic leadership can be taught or is a

longer, developmental process outside of the boundaries of the traditional classroom.

The purpose of this conceptual research is to address the fourth aspect of Cooper

et al.‟s (2005) suggested areas of future research, application of authentic leadership in

training and development. In line with Northouse‟s (2013) call for more clarity in

regards to the impact of authentic leadership on organizational outcomes, understanding

whether AL can be taught in the first place seems an important element to add to the

growing research base.

Leadership is today seen as a key component to the field. In fact, as Madsen

(2011:134) suggest, “leadership development scholarship has important implications for

career development, training and development, and organization development – the three

core categories that characterize the field of HRD”. HRD professionals who thus

understand the importance and impact of leadership development can successfully

support organizational performance. In short, the pertinent question for this study is

whether ALD as suggested by Avolio and Gardner (2005), can be taught in an

organizational context and the impact on organizational outcome.

To that end, the manuscript is organized in five sections: the first section provides

an overview of leadership; the second describes the research methods used for this


5

conceptual study; the third presents a synthesis of the literature on the ALD and

leadership development literatures. The fourth section makes connections between the

scholarship of ALD and the practice of leadership development. This section offers a

synthesis of literature, and is considered to be the „findings‟ of this conceptual study. The

fifth and final section includes the implications and conclusions for HRD.

Leadership Overview

Leadership has become a big part in our daily lives. At the collective and societal

level leadership now penetrates almost every sphere of life: whether formally an elected

leader for an entire country or a leader in a corporate setting; a volunteer soccer coach in

elementary school or leading a small book club; leading civil action at the grassroots

level or initiating a protest against changes in the immediate community, leadership has

evolved into a multi-faceted and multidimensional field. Day and Harrison (2007)

suggest there cannot be a leader without a social context, just as Goffee and Jones (2012:

153) suggest, “human actions…do not take place in a vacuum”. However, as recent

leadership theories emphasize the importance of personal development, it is reasonable to

suggest inner reflection of thoughts, beliefs and feelings can neither be considered a

social context nor a vacuum; as only we, our selves, can explore our most inner thoughts,

ideas, beliefs and so forth to understand ourselves as well as others better as individuals,

then we are in essence all leaders, leaders of and in our own lives.

The increasing emphasis on leadership that has emerged during the

past decade has resulted in the leader-role as “becom[ing] one of the dominant heroes of

our time” (Alvesson and Spicer, 2011:1). In HRD, leadership is among one of the most

popular areas in both research and practice (Ardichvili & Manderschied, 2008). In


6

general, the majority of leadership studies are however filled with “paradigmatic

assumptions, methodological preferences, and ideological commitments” (Alvesson &

Svenningson, 2003: 359-360). Furthermore, the plethora of leadership studies have been

“inconclusive and often contradictory” (Higgs, 2003: 281), prompting a call for a

paradigmatic shift, and former leadership theories are insufficient to prepare leaders for

the new demands of today (O‟Brien & Robertson, 2008). Starkey and Hall (2012) suggest

the changing nature of leadership calls for leaders whose focus is to empower people to

step up and lead rather than exerting power and control, which in turn calls for a different

approach in leadership development. Built around personal leadership development, ALD

development, ALD is a recent theory within the leadership literature which, based on the

number of scholar contributions the past decade appears an increasingly attractive

leadership popular leadership approach.

Throughout history, leadership theories have evolved in line with contextual

changes and on-going world events. Autocratic leadership, for example is said to have its

roots in the early part of the industrial revolution‟s focus on production in which leaders

prioritized the needs of the organization, before the needs of the employees (Stone &

Patterson, 2005), to be further explored in Kurt Lewin‟s study, a social psychologist from

Europe. Pre-occupied with social conflict in the wake of WWII, Lewin looked at

leadership from a behavioral science perspective and identified democratic and laissez-

faire leadership styles in addition to autocratic leadership, and laid the ground for future

leadership studies (Burnes, 2004).

Fast forward a few decades, and the world of today appears to have called for yet

another change in leadership due to the increasingly competitive market, and unfolding


7

complexity that organizations face, together with corruption and unstable world politics.

The world economy is more and more global (Drucker, 2001), and the technological

evolution continues to revolutionize the way we work. Higgs (2003) suggested the

critical issues facing organizations in the 21st century are changes in societal values,

changes in investor focus, challenges in implementing organizational change, and the

awareness of impact of stress on employees. Organizations are furthermore increasingly

complex, where relations between components in the system continually change

(Manson, 2001), creating new challenges for leaders. In the words of Hamel (Barsh,

2008), in the 21st century, companies will need to be innovative, adaptable as well as

exciting places to work. Leaders must thus address complexity, innovation and be able to

motivate and stimulate people.

Scholars and practitioners alike further agree that if organizations want to succeed today,

there is a call for a higher sense of morality and ethics in leadership (George & Sims,

2007; Avolio & Gardner, 2005, Tubbs & Schulz, 2006), which are crucial elements to

authentic leadership as defined by Avolio and Gardner (2005).

Methods

The methods used for this conceptual study was comprised of conducting a

research of peer-reviewed articles in databases such as Academic Search Complete,

ERIC, PsycArticles and Business Source Complete as well as textbooks and academic

literature within leadership studies, using the descriptors authentic leadership,

development, challenges, and outcomes in different combinations. There were two key

criteria for selection: first, the article needed to have been published between between


8

2003- 2014 in AHRD journals; and second, an additional search by author name for those

who are recognized key scholars within the study of AL. The reason for limiting the date

of publication was that ALD as a theory emerged in 2003 although authenticity and

leadership have been discussed previously.

Among all the articles published in the four HRD journals, we found 90 articles

about ALD: 17 from Human Resource Development Quarterly (HRDQ), 1 from Human

Resource Development International (HRDI), 31 from Human Resource Development

Review (HRDR), and 40 from Advances in Developing Human Resources (ADHR). In

searching the same journals for key scholars in ALD, 13 articles were found, although the

majority discussed positive psychological capital, which is however related to ALD

(Avolio & Gardner, 2005).

Because this is not an integrative literature review, more complete methods about

the search and selection process are not required (Callahan, 2010). The aim of this review

of literature was to select those articles that could contribute to understanding how to

develop authentic leaders. Some articles were selected because of their conceptual

contributions, while others were selected due to their focus on the practice of developing

leaders. Consequently, the findings here are one way to consider ALD, and one way to

think about developing authentic leaders in classrooms, communities, and society.

The research question guiding this study is: can ALD be taught to enhance

leadership abilities and improve organizational performance (however measured)? A

related question is: can ALD serve as a holistic leadership model within the field of HRD,

given HRD‟s scholarly foundations? The purpose of the study is to identify and analyze


9

AHRD journal scholarly literature on ALD and leadership development to create a new

way of understanding how to develop ALD in multiple contexts.

Purpose

As recent interest in HRD in finding meaning and purpose with HRD beyond the

organizational goal of performance that suggests HRD research has lacked a “holistic

understanding of the individual” (Kuchinke, 2013: 372), to the authors suggest ALD

could be aligned with the needs of HRD as a holistic model for leadership development

“that will see learning, well-being, meaning and spirituality” as values in themselves

rather than as a mean to drive performance.

Scholars agree that regardless of approach, AL is a “synergetic pattern of leader

behaviors such as self-awareness internalized moral perspective, relational transparency

and balanced processing” (Goffee & Jones, 2005) that involves context and followers.

Significance

This conceptual study offers the field of HRD to important ways forward in terms

of developing leaders: first, from a scholarly perspective, the study is significant because

it is the first time the AHRD literature has been reviewed for its contribution to ALD.

And second, from a practice perspective, this study links a promising emerging

leadership theory to the actual practice of developing human resources through the HRD

lens. In redefining meaning and purpose of HRD as suggested by Kuchinke (2013), ALD

could furthermore provide a holistic understanding of leadership as well as repositioning

the focus on the individual in the organization, and where human values are seen for what

they are. By understanding the complexities of leadership, HRD professionals can be

more effective in organizations.


10

ALD and Leadership Development: Review of Literature

Authentic Leadership is becoming quite the buzz, in academia as well as in more

popular leadership literature. As a theory, it builds from positive psychology as a root

construct and evolves around psychological capital composed of efficacy, hope,

resilience, and optimism (Peterson et al., 2012).

Authentic Leadership (AL)

One of the most recent strands within the leadership theory literature is authentic

leadership, which is similar to transformational, charismatic and servant leadership

(Avolio et al., 2004). Avolio et al. (2004) suggested authentic leadership could be viewed

as the combination of transformational and ethical leadership. Although the concept of

authenticity has been around for many years, as a theory it is estimated to have emerged

around 2003 (Northouse, 2013).

In authentic leadership, as with most leadership studies, there are several

definitions. However, the central elements that have emerged thus far are leaders

awareness of their values and beliefs; leaders self-confidence and being genuine;

reliability and trustworthiness and leaders‟ focus on building followers strengths (May,

Chan, Hodges & Avolio, 2003; Luthans & Avolio, 2003; Avolio & Gardner, 2005;

Gardner, Avolio & Walumbwa, 2005a). Scholars seem to agree there are fundamentally

four factors involved in authentic leadership: self-awareness, internalized moral

perspective, balanced processing and relational transparency (Northouse, 2013;

Ardichivili & Manderscheid, 2008). These four factors create the constructs to the theory

of authentic leadership, ALD.

ALD involves the follower component as equal to the leader component.


11

However, the impact of context is important in future research (Luthans, Avey, Avolio &

Peterson, 2010). ALD is based on the leaders personal development (leader-base) as well

as the follower-component (follower-based) in addition to the dynamic relation that

occurs between leader and follower (dyadic relationship). However, as Clarke (2012)

suggest, a limitation to ALD is that in spite of this multidimensional approach, it is

focused on evaluation criteria on the individual level. Mumford and Fried (2014) further

criticizes the narrowness of only incorporating followers, while leaders in reality have

multiple stakeholders, such as senior leaders or peers.

In theory, ALD could seem to equip leaders that operate in turbulent contexts,

characterized by constant change: as integrity and developmental experiences and

feelings of meaningful work produce higher levels of trust, commitment and well-being

among followers (Gardner et al., 2005b), followers become more empowered to approach

change and complexity themselves. Higgs & Rowland (2011) conducted an extensive

analysis in regards to the success of change in a number of different contexts, in which

they identified three broad sets of leadership behaviors: shaping behavior, framing

change and creating capacity. The underlying foundation for all three is communication

and engagement. Avolio et al. (2004) suggest authentic leaders encourage open

communication and engage followers building trust and optimism, by being transparent

and honest, further illustrating the fit of AL in the 21st century organization.

Other criticisms to ALD concern the lack of empirical research (Northouse, 2013;

Neider and Schriesheim, 2011; Mumford & Fried, 2014), in particular for the more

practice-oriented approaches as suggested by George (2005) and Terry (1993). Alvesson

and Spicer (2011) further question the assumed noble intentions underpinning authentic


12

leadership. However, it could be suggested that understanding how the underpinning

constructs are interlinked, the moral component is rather explicit. A lingering question

here is however whose morals determine what‟s good and what‟s not? Hannah, Lester

and Vogelgesang (2005) suggest authentic leaders realize their leadership role includes a

responsibility to act morally and in the best interest of others.

However, Northouse (2013) suggest the dilemma surrounding the moral

component is due to being thoroughly explained. Morality as a moral dimension of

authentic leadership is particularly complex and evolved, and depends on a highly

developed moral self-concept (Chan et al. 2005); Hannah et al. 2005). This self-concept

has in turn developed over time, through life and the individual developmental cognitive

experiences (Hannah et al., 2005).

In sum, the body of literature surrounding ALD has grown significantly since its

inception as a theory a little over a decade ago. As a theory, ALD shows promising

aspects for leadership in the 21st century organizations. However, to become a truly

significant theory, it has to be effective in practice.

Leadership Development

Snook, Nohria and Khurana (2012) lament current leadership education due to a

lack of intellectual rigor as well as limited institutional structures. Although the scholars

implicitly refer to leadership development in business schools, it could be suggested this

adheres to leadership development in organizations.

As much as the study of leadership has increased and evolved, leadership

development still remains largely unexplored in terms of a multilevel perspective (Day

and Harrison, 2007). The first level as suggested by Avolio (2004), constitutes the leader.


13

A vast proportion of leadership development has addressed this level, as most traditional

leadership theories are leader-centric (Kellerman, 2012). However, as Useem (2012)

suggest, learning new theories does not guarantee action and thus be a disconnect

between theory and practice. The second level considers a wider context in terms of

followers, peers and superiors. An example of this is Raelin (2004) who suggested that

learning that is not in line with the organizational reality hinders the application, creating

the aforementioned disconnect between knowledge and practice. The third level

considers the organizational climate and culture (Avolio, 2004) and the impact of context.

Goffee and Jones (2005) apply a similar multidimensional approach what they refer to as

situational, relational and non-hierarchical. A multilevel approach to leadership

development should thus consider all three levels.

Some of the most influential trends in leadership development has been the use of

the 360° Feedback and the importance of teams to organizations (Hernez-Broome &

Hughes, 2004). Hanson (2012) further lists executive coaching, stretch assignments and

action learning in addition to traditional leadership programs. Mumford, Peterson,

Robledo and Hester (2012) suggest case-based instruction as the most commonly used

technique in leadership development.

Leadership development thus span an array of multi-level formal as well as

informal interventions, which can be single interventions or connected to other strategic

actions in the organization. However, the impact of leadership development, an

estimated $50 million yearly business (Raelin, 2004), remains unclear (Hernez-Broome

& Hughes, 2004). Studies have addressed the impact on behavior rather than in terms of

return on investment (ROI); Dvir, Eden, Avolio and Shamir (2002) studied the impact of


14

transformational leadership on follower development and trust; Nielsen (2012) looked at

how laissez-faire, transformational and authentic leadership respectively impacted

bullying in the workplace. Clarke (2012) suggests leadership development today is a

more complex matter with a different scope where evaluation must shift from being

leader-centric to being holistic.

Raelin (2004) suggest, leadership may be shifting from the view of leadership as a

position of authority to leadership as a mutual social phenomenon. As Hernez-Broome

and Hughes (2004) found, “[t]he model of effective leadership in the future will be one of

encouraging environments that unlock the entire organization's human asset potential” (p.

29).

Scholars thus seem in agreement that for leadership development to have an

impact in practice, there must be a more holistic approach that sees to the individual, the

organizational and the societal practice (Hanson, 2012; Kellerman, 2012; Starkey & Hall,

2012; Chalofsky & Cavallaro, 2013). While the focus of ALD centre‟s around self-

awareness and deep knowledge of self and thus would seem to be another leader-centric

theory, the model is built on the leader and the follower and set within the organizational

context. However, the model still fails to adequately involve the impact of context. The

societal effect of ALD thus seem to rest more on a “ring on the water”-effect, in which

the good outcomes of authentic leaders in terms of driving performance through

motivation and optimism, are implicit.

Findings

The question guiding this study was whether ALD can be taught in terms of a

leadership course and how it would impact organizational performance. The guiding


15

assumption for this study is that if ALD is learned and applied in an organization,

organizations will benefit in terms of performance as suggested by Avolio and Gardner

(2005), with efficacy, optimism, hope and resilience as positive and motivational drivers

to drive increased performance (Peterson, Walumbwa, Avolio & Hannah, 2012).

Bennis (1995) suggest that effective leadership originates from the leader‟s sense

of self. As a core element to ALD is a deep knowledge of self and self-awareness, a

necessary key distinction for the scope of this study, is between the words teach versus

the word develop. To teach someone something sparks at the same time someone

learning something, and in terms of developing, learning takes on the distinction of

learning at a deep and personal level. As such, it is not learning about something

objectively as separate from oneself such as a new subject matter or a new theory but

rather it is learning about one self, inner beliefs and thoughts, and asking the question of

“Who am I?” and “Who am I as a leader?”. The self-reflective aspect to ALD is

fundamental and perhaps the most challenging to many leaders. Bennis (1995) suggest,

an effective leader must develop self-awareness, or inner leadership through personal

understanding of him/herself.

Authenticity is however achieved as individuals develop, mature and become

aware of what their core moral self is and then “manifest that true self in control of their

environment through the exercise of moral agency” (Hannah et al., 2005: 47). As Ready

and Conger (2007) suggest, it is important to draw from experience in life and see life as

part of the leadership journey. Building from aspects such as self-awareness, moral

beliefs, relational transparency and balanced processing (Avolio & Gardner, 2005), ALD

clearly involves personal development at a deep level, developing leaders from within.


16

Starkey and Hall (2012) suggest there is a difference between creating leaders rather than

teaching about leadership; the ontological question of being a leader must thus be

considered. Ladkin (2010) similarly discuss leadership from a phenomenological

perspective and emphasizes the importance of understanding the absences in our being in

the world as inherently present in our experiences. This further emphasizes the

developmental course ALD necessarily must take.

With deep knowledge of self, self-awareness is the very heart of ALD. Higgs

(2003) suggests a core issue in leadership studies is whether leadership should focus on

personality or behavior, in essence recalling Plato‟s idea of leadership as innate. With

cognitive elements such as self-awareness, ALD is focused around behavior and is a

developmental approach.

Within ALD, self-awareness requires investment from the individual in terms of

time and self-discovery to understand self, and be able to reach at the very core at one‟s

true self (Avolio & Wersning, 2008). This is perhaps the most challenging aspect to

ALD, as this calls for an individual readiness that is hard to assess. As such,

implementing ALD as formal leadership development training may not be something

every leader is ready for. However, at the same time, it could be argued that hearing

about the theoretical constructs to ALD and learning about the importance of self-

reflection, may trigger interest and spark learning. Furthermore, providing individuals

with tools for self-reflection such as 360 feedbacks, journaling and other could further

facilitate learning.

Self-assessment can however be flawed, and individuals may not be open to

feedback or may not even receive candid feedback (Anderson & Kole, 2012) and self-


17

reflection requires an on-going ability to “challenge our own thoughts, feelings, values,

attitudes, beliefs and habits of mind” (Starkey & Hall: 89). In a way, the individual has to

become the objective researcher of his or her own subjective mind.

Furthermore, with the lack of impact of context, unless the organizational climate

is not aligned with similar aspects such as honesty, trust, transparency and good

intentions, the effect could be to create a disconnect between theory and practice, as the

premises for authentic leadership being open, honest and transparent may not apply. In a

similar vein, many ALD courses appear to build from personal stories. Inspired by

George‟s (2007) approach to AL, the personal story becomes the focal point of the

leadership development course. From a practitioner‟s standpoint, the personal story is

engaging and inspiring. George (2007) base the approach on a deeper purpose of the

individual leader, to identify that purpose to lead oneself in life, preferably with a greater

scope that touches the larger context. However, based on the notion of having the

confidence to be who you are or standing up for who you are, may not be supported in

reality in the organizational context. In several authentic leadership training programs

both in academia as well as in practitioner oriented programs (see for example Harvard

Business School and Authentic Leadership Institute), participants are explicitly told to

not participate unless they are willing to share personal stories. As George (2012)

describes, “the course format is designed to facilitate the intensely personal nature of

leadership, requiring students to be reflective and have personal curiosity about

themselves” (George, 2012: 317).

The question here is the impact of the context of the training. It could be

suggested that the openness to sharing deeply personal stories may not depend on a


18

persons cognitive readiness but rather on the other aspects that make up the person such

as background, culture and similar as well as context for the setting. There is a scant

attention to the impact of such aspects in authentic leadership development. If ALD is to

be implemented at an organizational level, it could be suggested that thorough attention is

paid to how ALD is implemented and look at alternative methods that transcend the

traditional leadership-course setting. To retain the authenticity of ALD, there should be

no competition of how deep a personal story “should” be as could for example happen in

a competitive culture such as the U.S. while status boundaries in Asian contexts could

impact the sharing of personal stories per se.

This poses the question whether ALD can be implemented in an organization

from two aspects: if individuals are not ready at the personal level, the impact could even

foster pseudo-authenticity and secondly, if the organizational context is not promoting the

same values that ALD is built around, the impact on overall performance may be lost.

From another perspective, it could be argued that as ALD can be an underpinning

foundation to any form of leadership, be it directive or democratic (Avolio and Gardner,

2005), the organizational context would have limited impact. The point here is if an

organization is interested in implementing ALD, attention to the organizational context

prior could prove to enhance the impact of the leadership development and potentially

help bridge the gap between what is said and how it in reality can be done.

Shamor and Eilam (2005: 396) suggest leaders become authentic through

“constructing, developing and revising their life-stories”. However, for ALD to really be

impactful, there has to be truth involved.

With this in mind, two premises need to be made for the development of authentic


19

leaders as suggested by ALD: 1) Leaders may or may not be ready to engage in deep self-

reflection and personal development of self; and, 2) Through the being of leadership,

developing of authentic leaders is a longer process which develops over time.

The aspect of self further involves depths that must be understood by the HRD-

professional for any ALD development to be respectful of the human being. Lord and

Brown (2004) talks about the feared self, which is where negative self-talk comes from;

the actual self, which is our theory of how we are; and the possible self, which is the

person I hope to become. ALD must start from understanding the dynamic between these

three senses of self (Gardner et al., 2005).

Another key aspect to ALD is the moral component, which is also a developed

ability (May, Chan, Hodges & Avolio, 2003). In ALD, it is however a question of a

higher moral capacity, “to serve the collective interests of the group” (Avolio &

Wernsing, 2008). As always when it comes to morals however, a common question is

“whose moral?”, meaning who decides what morals are the right morals. In terms of

ALD, a third construct comes into play, balanced processing. Knowing what ones core

moral beliefs are combined with applying delayed judgment and listening before making

a decision, is what comprises authentic leadership (Avolio& Wernsing, 2008). This

could further suggest ALD is above all, a developmental form of learning which takes

place over the course of life.

Conclusion

A recent article suggests HRD needs to redefine meaning and purpose in terms of

an increasingly holistic approach to individuals and organizations, and see humans for

what they are rather than as means to increase performance (Kuchinke, 2005). Somewhat


20

in line with Kuchinke, Starkey and Hall (2012:91) suggest there is a need to create

learning experiences that “nurture the spirit as well as promote reflection on the meaning

and purpose of material success”. Kellerman (2012) further suggest leadership has

leaders need to listen and followers need to be heard, shifting the traditional view on

power and subordinance.

The implications of ALD could be to provide the holistic leadership development

model aligned with the new purpose of HRD in line with important aspects of leadership

in the 21st century organization. Other perspectives of ALD are clearly enriching the

understanding of the theory. However, if we are to consider HRD as a discipline as well,

a HRD-perspective should add to the growing body of research. The lens of economic

theory, psychological theory and systems theory (Swanson & Holton, 2009) may be the

bridge that can ensure a theorys applicability to practice.

However, ALD requires much more thought in terms of implementation, as it

cannot be assumed that all leaders would be ready for such levels of personal

development. As such, ALD can definitely be developed rather than taught and would

provide a welcome approach to leadership in the sometimes unrealistic and idealized

view of what a leaders should be like, which furthermore causes conflict within a leader

which in extreme cases in turn can lead to burn out or exhaustion.

In conclusion, the implications of ALD as a promising leadership theory that

could, if carefully implemented, equip leaders in the 21st century organization, could

prove to enhance performance and increase followers motivation and well-being.

However, HRD- professionals must approach ALD with same respect for individuals that

is implicitly embedded in the construct of values in this theory and carefully craft the


21

developmental initiatives based on context as well as be clear on how ALD realistically

can be applied in regards to followers levels of knowledge and experience. In short, as

with any new trend, ALD should be approached with a healthy amount of skepticism to

hinder a potentially promising theory from becoming a diluted, idealistic fad.


22

References

Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2003). The great disappearing act: difficulties in doing

“leadership.” The Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 359–381. doi:10.1016/S1048-

9843(03)00031-6

Anderson, J., & Kole, S.R. (2012). Leadership effectiveness and development: Building

self-awareness and insight skills. In S.Snook, N. Nohria and R. Khurana (Eds.). The

handbook for teaching leadership: Knowing, doing and being. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Ardichvili, a., & Manderscheid, S. V. (2008). Emerging Practices in Leadership

Development: An Introduction. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(5),

619–631. doi:10.1177/1523422308321718

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. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 801–823.

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.003

Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the

root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315–338.

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001

Callahan, J. L., Whitener, J. K., & Sandlin, J. a. (2007). The Art of Creating Leaders:

Popular Culture Artifacts as Pathways for Development. Advances in Developing

Human Resources, 9(2), 146–165. doi:10.1177/1523422306298856


23

Chalofsky, N., & Cavallaro, L. (2013). A Good Living Versus A Good Life: Meaning,

Purpose, and HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 15(4), 331–340.

doi:10.1177/1523422313498560

Chan, A., Hannah, S.T., & Gardner, W.L. (2005). Veritable authentic leadership:

Emergence, functioning and impact. In W.L. Garder , B.J. Avolio, F.O.

Walumbwa (Eds.) Authentic Leadership Theory and Practice, Volume 3: Origins,

Effects and Development. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Group Ltd.

Clarke, N. (2013). Model of complexity leadership development. Human Resource

Development International, 16(2), 135–150. doi:10.1080/13678868.2012.756155

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.

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.008

Day, D. V., & Harrison, M. M. (2007). A multilevel, identity-based approach to

leadership development. Human Resource Management Review, 17(4), 360–373.

doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.08.007

Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1997). Leadership in Western and Asian countries:

Commonalities and differences in effective leadership... Leadership Quarterly.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational

leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy

of Management Journal, 45(4), 735–745.

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. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.003


24

George, W. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting

value. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Goffe, R. L. B. S., & Jones, G. (2005). Managing Authenticity The Paradox of Great

Leadership. Harvard Business Review, 83(2), 87–94.

Governance Studies at Brookings. (2012). Cut off at the pass: The limits for leadership in

the 21st century. Washington, DC: B. Kellerman.

Hanson, B. (2012). The Leadership Development Interface: Aligning Leaders and

Organizations Toward More Effective Leadership Learning. Advances in

Developing Human Resources, 15(1), 106–120. doi:10.1177/1523422312465853

Hannah, S.T., Lester, P.B., & Vogelgesang, G.R. (2005). Moral leadership: Explicating

the moral component of authentic leadership. In W. Gardner, B.J. Avolio & F.O.

Walumbwa (Eds.) Authentic Leadership: Origins, Effects and Development (pp.

43-82). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.

Higgs, M. (2003). How can we make sense of leadership in the 21st century? Leadership

& Organization Development Journal, 24(5), 273–284.

doi:10.1108/01437730310485798

Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2011). What Does It Take to Implement Change

Successfully? A Study of the Behaviors of Successful Change Leaders. The Journal

of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(3), 309–335. doi:10.1177/0021886311404556

Kuchinke, K. P. (2013). Human Agency and HRD: Returning Meaning, Spirituality, and

Purpose to HRD Theory and Practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources,

15(4), 370–381. doi:10.1177/1523422313498563


25

Ladkin, D. (2010). Rethinking leadership. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing

Inc.

Luthans, F., Avey, J.B., Avolio, B.J., & Peterson, S. J. (2010). The development and

resulting performance impact of psychological capital. Human Resource

Development Quarterly. 21, 41-67.

Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2009). The “„ point ‟” of positive organizational behavior.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 291–307. doi:10.1002/job

Madsen, S. R. (2012). Women and Leadership in Higher Education: Current Realities,

Challenges, and Future Directions . Advances in Developing Human Resources , 14

(2 ), 131–139. doi:10.1177/1523422311436299

May, D. R., Chan, A. Y. L., Hodges, T. D., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Developing the Moral

Component of Authentic Leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32(3), 247–260.

doi:10.1016/S0090-2616(03)00032-9

McKinsey Report (2012). Leading in the 21st century: An interview with Michael Useem.

Retrieved from

http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/leading_in_the_21st_century/an_interview_wi

th_michael_useem

Mumford, M. D., & Fried, Y. (2014). Give them what they want or give them what they

need ? Ideology in the study of leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

(January). doi:10.1002/job

Nielsen, M.B. (2012). Bullying in work groups: the impact of leadership. Scandinavian

Journal of Psychology, 54(2), 127-136.


26

Northouse, P.G (2013). Leadership – Theory and practice, 6th

Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

O‟Brien, E., & Robertson, P. (2009). Future leadership competencies: from foresight to

current practice. Journal of European Industrial Training, 33(4), 371–380.

doi:10.1108/03090590910959317

Peterson, S. J., Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., & Hannah, S. T. (2012). The relationship

between authentic leadership and follower job performance: The mediating role of

follower positivity in extreme contexts. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 502–516.

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.12.004

Ready, D.A. and Conger, J.A. (2007). Making your company a talent factory. Harvard

Business Review, 85 (6), 68-77.

Starkey, K., & Hall, C. (2012). The spirit of leadership – New directions in leadership

education. In S.Snook, N. Nohria and R. Khurana (Eds.). The handbook for teaching

leadership: Knowing, doing and being. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stone, A. G., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant

leadership: a difference in leader focus. Leadership & Organization Development

Journal, 25(4), 349–361. doi:10.1108/01437730410538671

Swanson, R.A. & Holton, E.F. III. (2009). Foundations of Human Resource Development

(2nd

ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Tubbs, S.L., & E. Schulz, E. (2006). Exploring a taxonomy of global leadership

competencies and meta competencies. Journal of American Academy of Business,

Cambridge, 8 (2), 20–34.


27

Date post:	23-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dominh
View:	216 times
Download:	2 times

Understanding Authentic Leadership Theory From a HRD ... · development remains infrequent within...

Documents