Article Component Papers (LEADERSHIP TRAITS AND SKILLS)

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260014654

Leader and follower attachment styles: Implications for authentic leader–

follower relationships

Article  in  The Leadership Quarterly · June 2014

DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.12.002

CITATIONS

24

READS

2,790

4 authors, including:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A dark side of political skill? Awareness and life satisfaction in a Latin American Business: View project

Amanda S. Hinojosa

Howard University

10 PUBLICATIONS   67 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Brandon Randolph-Seng

Texas A&M University-Commerce

36 PUBLICATIONS   337 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

William L. Gardner

Texas Tech University

108 PUBLICATIONS   10,701 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Brandon Randolph-Seng on 18 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 595–610

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Leadership Quarterly

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua

Leader and follower attachment styles: Implications for authentic leader–follower relationships

Amanda S. Hinojosa a,⁎, Kelly Davis McCauley a, Brandon Randolph-Seng b, William L. Gardner a

a Texas Tech University, USA b Texas A&M University Commerce, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

⁎ Corresponding author at: Institute for Leadership R 834 4439.

E-mail address: [email protected] (A.

1048-9843/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. A http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.12.002

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 19 January 2013 Received in revised form 6 December 2013 Accepted 9 December 2013 Available online 15 January 2014

Handling Editor: Ronald Riggio persons are most likely to exhibit authentic leadership/followership. We review empirical work

Authentic leadership theory posits that the authenticity of leaders and followers is influenced by their personal histories. Attachment theory states that individuals have internal working models that are influenced by both early developmental experiences and relationships later in life. These models guide how people interact with close others and tend toward three styles of attachment: secure, insecure-ambivalent, and insecure-avoidant. We argue that securely attached

which suggests that secure attachment is positively related to each of the four components of authentic leadership/followership (self-awareness, relational transparency, balanced processing, and internalized moral perspective). We then develop an attachment-based typology for variations in authentic leader–follower relationships, with emphasis on relationships that include an insecurely attached party. Finally, we draw from the attachment and authentic leadership literatures to suggest interventions to foster the development of authentic leadership/followership, thereby enhancing authentic leader–follower relationships.

© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Authentic leadership Leader–follower relations Attachment theory Followership Leadership development

Human beings of all ages are happiest and able to deploy their talents to best advantage when they are confident that, standing behind them, there are one or more trusted persons who will come to their aid should difficulties arise.

[Bowlby, 1979, pp. 103–104]

1. Introduction

Much wisdom is reflected by this quote from John Bowlby, the founder of attachment theory. Bowlby recognized that people are most fulfilled and able to apply their talents to achieve excellence when they trust others are there to support them. Having the confidence to recognize and use personal strengths reflects Polonius's adage from Shakespeare's Hamlet, “To thine own self be true.” This adage has inspired a new approach to leadership, authentic leadership (AL), which has been increasingly embraced by practitioners (George, 2003) and scholars (Gardner, Cogliser, Davis, & Dickens, 2011) alike over the past decade. Authentic leaders understand who they are and attempt to foster congruence between their internal talents, feelings, thoughts, and beliefs and their externally-oriented actions (Luthans & Avolio, 2003). That is, leaders who remain “true to the self,” experience a sense of authenticity that is accompanied by feelings of well-being (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005; Ilies, Morgeson,

esearch, Rawls College of Business, MS 2101, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA. Tel.: +1 806

S. Hinojosa).

ll rights reserved.

596 A.S. Hinojosa et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 595–610

& Nahrgang, 2005). Conversely, when a lack of internal–external congruency arises, the leader is unable to achieve authenticity and adverse psychological consequences may accrue (Kernis, 2003; Kernis & Goldman, 2006).

Authentic leaders also support followers as they strive to achieve their own authenticity (Gardner et al., 2005). Such support is consistent with Bowlby's recognition that a secure relationship with close others promotes knowledge and confidence in one's abilities and provides a safe environment for people to apply those abilities. Indeed, given the focus of AL development (Avolio & Gardner, 2005) on fostering congruence between the intra- and interpersonal processes of leaders and followers, we posit that the attachment styles of both parties (as part of their internal working model; Ainsworth, Bell, & Stayton, 1971; Bowlby, 1969, 1988) influence the authenticity of their relationship. AL theory asserts that through positive modeling, authentic leaders can help followers develop their authenticity, and as a result create authentic leader–follower relationships (Gardner et al., 2005). However, we propose that the follower's attachment style is equally important since, according to AL theory, leader and follower authenticity is essential to the attainment of an authentic leader–follower relationship (Gardner et al., 2005).1

Attachment theory asserts that individuals form an attachment style—secure, insecure-ambivalent, or insecure-avoidant— toward primary caregivers early in life, and this attachment style becomes an internal working model (i.e., a schema/script) for interactions in future relationships (Ainsworth et al., 1971; Bowlby, 1969, 1988). The central premise of attachment theory is that caregivers who encourage children to develop a healthy independence will enable them to form secure attachment styles that will, in turn, facilitate the future development of healthy adult relationships in their private and professional lives (Bowlby, 1988). In contrast, children who are unable to form secure relationships with caregivers may find it difficult to develop secure personal and work relationships as adults (Bowlby, 1979). While the foundational attachment research focused on infants and their relationships with caregivers, later research has explored its implications for adults (Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), romantic relationships (Keelan, Dion, & Dion, 1998; Pistole, 1989), supervisor–subordinate relationships (Simmons, Gooty, Nelson, & Little, 2009), co-workers (Nelson, Quick, & Joplin, 1991) and leaders (Davidiovitz, Mikulincer, Shaver, Izsak, & Popper, 2007; Keller, 2003; Popper, 2002; Popper & Amit, 2009; Popper & Mayseless, 2003; Popper, Mayseless, & Castelnovo, 2000). Recent research suggests that while initial attachment styles can have a great impact on attachment in future relationships, relationship-specific attachment styles can also develop (Fraley, 2007). According to Fraley's (2007) work on the connectionist model of attachment, the attachment style enacted in a relationship is determined by the relative salience of the various attachment models a person has formed in other relationships. For example, in a relationship with a co-worker, the person's relationships with other co-workers are more likely to be salient than their relationships with parents. Thus, the attachment style one developed early in life with a parent may exert less influence in this situation than the attachment style with co-workers. Nevertheless, both of these relationship-specific styles may play a role in determining the attachment style enacted in this particular work relationship. In other words, although the child's attachment to a parent sets an important path for the development of an attachment working model, this model is not deterministic and is therefore open to change across and within different relationships (Fraley, 2007; La Guardia, Ryan, Couchman, & Deci, 2000).

While attachment theory has been applied in leadership research, many implications of attachment theory for the field of leadership have yet to be explored (Harms, 2011). The emerging field of AL scholarship is one such area that may benefit from the application of this perspective. Attachment theory is particularly promising for the refinement of AL theory because there is extensive theory and research linking attachment styles to authenticity (e.g., Brunnel et al., 2010; Gillath, Sesku, Shaver, & Chun, 2010; Lemay & Clark, 2008). Because persons with secure attachment styles have been shown to achieve greater authenticity in their lives and relationships, we expect these findings to generalize to leader and follower roles within organizations. Indeed, the connection between authenticity and secure attachment styles was highlighted in Kernis and Goldman's (2006) introduction of the multicomponent model of authenticity. Moreover, when the form of leadership enacted is authentic, leaders are posited to experience: 1) higher levels of personal well-being; 2) more positive, open and transparent relationships with followers; and 3) higher and more sustainable levels of performance (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner et al., 2005). Given the empirical and theoretical overlap, an exploration of the implications of attachment theory for the field of AL is warranted.

The purpose of this paper is to apply the extensive theoretical and empirical literature on attachment styles to introduce a new lens for understanding the factors that contribute to authentic leader–follower relationships. In particular, our paper makes four key contributions to the authentic leadership literature. First, we elaborate on the assertion of AL scholars (e.g., Gardner et al., 2005; Shamir & Eilam, 2005) that personal histories impact authentic leadership/followership by explicating the processes whereby attachment styles influence leader and follower authenticity. Second, by focusing on how the attachment styles of leaders and followers create a context that may support or undermine authentic leadership/followership, we answer calls of AL (e.g., Avolio, 2005; Gardner et al., 2011) and leadership scholars in general (Hernandez, Eberly, Avolio, & Johnson, 2011) to devote more attention to followers and the leadership context. Third, we identify various combinations of leader–follower attachment styles and introduce a typology based on how these combinations influence variations in authentic leader–follower relationships. Finally, we draw from the authentic leadership and attachment styles literatures to suggest various developmental interventions that could facilitate attachment security in leaders and followers. In the process, we describe specific techniques for fostering leader and follower authenticity, as well as more authentic leader–follower relationships, which proponents of AL development (Avolio & Wernsing, 2008) have advocated.

1 Our theoretical development and propositions focus on leader and follower roles. Thus, a person may occupy both roles, in different contexts. Therefore, the propositions apply to the roles of leader and follower within a particular dyad.

597A.S. Hinojosa et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 595–610

2. Authentic leadership

AL research has proliferated over the last decade. Despite the heightened scholarly interest, AL theory is still in a nascent stage of development (Gardner et al., 2011). In their review of this literature, Gardner and colleagues (2011) found that the field of AL appears to be coalescing around the perspective grounded in Kernis' four-component model of authenticity (Kernis, 2003; Kernis & Goldman, 2006) as applied to leadership by Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa and colleagues, among others (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner et al., 2005; Ilies et al., 2005; Spitzmuller & Ilies, 2010; Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008; Walumbwa, Wang, Wang, Schaubroeck, & Avolio, 2010). Accordingly, we adopt the following representative definition of this perspective:

“Authentic leadership is a pattern of leader behavior that draws upon and promotes both positive psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate, to foster greater self-awareness, an internalized moral perspective, balanced processing of information, and relational transparency on the part of leaders working with followers, fostering positive self-development”.

[(Walumbwa et al., 2008, p. 94)]

As this definition suggests, AL is composed of four components: self-awareness, balanced processing, relational transparency, and an internalized moral perspective (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Self-awareness is a process through which one comes to understand one's strengths, weaknesses, values, worldview and other unique parts of one's multifaceted self (Gardner et al., 2005). Relational transparency refers to presenting one's true self (as opposed to a fake self) to close others while openly taking in and sharing information regarding one's true thoughts and emotions (Gardner et al., 2005). Balanced processing involves objectively taking others' opinions along with relevant information into account before making decisions. Authentic leaders consider the interests of the group even when those interests conflict with their own. Additionally, they are relatively impartial in evaluating and owning both their positive and negative qualities (Gardner et al., 2005). Finally, an internalized moral perspective involves an integrated form of self-regulation, which is guided by a mission, deeply rooted values, or a desire to make a difference (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Hence, leader decision-making is rooted in internalized values rather than extrinsic rewards such as financial gain, status, or honor.

Preliminary evidence provides empirical support for the construct and predictive validity of the four-component model of AL (Gardner et al., 2011; Randolph-Seng & Gardner, 2013). For instance, confirmatory factor analyses have demonstrated that the four-component model achieves a better fit than alternative models (Hassan & Ahmed, 2011; Neider & Schriesheim, 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2008). Specifically, Walumbwa and colleagues (2008) found that the higher-order construct of AL could be extracted from the four components and that the subscales designed to measure these components achieved acceptable levels of internal reliability. In addition, consistent with extant theory, AL has been shown to be positively related to, but empirically distinct from, transformational leadership (Neider & Schriesheim, 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2008) and ethical leadership (Walumbwa, Luthans, Avey, & Oke, 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2008), providing evidence of both convergent and discriminant validity.

As part of their review of the AL literature, Gardner et al. (2011) examined the nomological network of the construct. That review, as well as subsequent empirical research, indicated that AL is associated with positive leader (e.g., behavioral integrity, Leroy, Palanski, & Simons, 2012; perceived leader effectiveness, Moriano, Molero, & Mangin, 2011; psychological well-being, Toor & Ofori, 2009), follower (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, work happiness, Jensen & Luthans, 2006; basic need satisfaction, work role performance, Leroy, Anseel, Gardner, & Sels, in press; extra effort, Moriano et al., 2011; satisfaction with supervisor, organizational commitment, job performance, Walumbwa et al., 2008; trust in leadership, Wong, Spence Laschinger, & Cummings, 2010), team (e.g., team authenticity, teamwork behavior, Hannah, Walumbwa, & Fry, 2011; team trust, Walumbwa et al., 2011), and organizational (e.g., firm level performance, Clapp-Smith, Vogelgesang, & Avey, 2009; new venture performance, Hmieleski, Cole, & Baron, 2012; openness of organizational climate, Hoy & Henderson, 1983) outcomes. AL has also been shown to be negatively associated with undesirable outcomes (e.g., contingent leader self-esteem, Toor & Ofori, 2009; follower burnout, Wong & Cummings, 2009). Together, these results provide extensive evidence of the predictive validity of the AL construct.

3. Attachment theory

John Bowlby (1969, 1979, 1988) argued that human behavior can only be understood by considering the basic environment within which that behavior evolved. He theorized that the attachment patterns infants developed with their primary caregiver would influence interpersonal experiences into adulthood. Based on detailed observations of the interactions between mothers and their young children at home and in lab settings, Mary Ainsworth and associates (1971) extended Bowlby's theory by identifying three patterns of attachment: secure, insecure-avoidant (avoidant), and insecure-ambivalent (ambivalent). Securely attached infants tended to have mothers who were responsive to their child's cries and other cues. Avoidant infants were more likely to have mothers that were insensitive to their child's cues, and ambivalent infants typically had mothers that were inconsistent in their responsiveness to their child (Ainsworth et al., 1971).

Research on adult attachment patterns supports Bowlby's and Ainsworth's assertions. In particular, securely attached adults are more likely to be open to others, believe others are trustworthy, and seek balance between closeness and autonomy (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Avoidant adults are more likely to be suspicious of human motives, believe others are not trustworthy, and avoid

598 A.S. Hinojosa et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 595–610

closeness (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Mikulincer, 1998b). Finally, ambivalent adults are more likely to be overly reliant on others, fear that they will be let down, and sabotage others' attempts at becoming close (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Thus, while people with either insecure attachment style are likely to have difficulty trusting others, the two styles differ with regard to the behavioral strategies used to cope with insecurity in close relationships; in essence, avoidant adults deal with relationship insecurity by distancing themselves from others, while ambivalent adults deal with relationship insecurity by clinging to close others.

Although the attachment style developed in early childhood can influence the development of one's attachment working model throughout the lifespan, the internal working model of attachment in adulthood is impacted by a wide variety of relationship-specific contextual factors (Bowlby, 1988; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). As such, people modify their internal working models to adjust to these contextual factors. In fact, recent developments in attachment theory suggest that the attachment style enacted in adult relationships is relatively context-specific, particularly for relationships that extend beyond the nuclear family, such as a leader– follower relationship (Baldwin & Fehr, 1995; Fraley, 2002, 2007; La Guardia et al., 2000; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).

Recent work in attachment theory suggests that the attachment style enacted in a given relationship is an amalgam of multiple attachment working models associated with different roles (e.g., parent, child, romantic partner, friend, or supervisor; Fraley, 2007). This connectionist model of attachment suggests that the most salient models in a given context will most heavily influence the attachment style enacted, whereas less salient styles will be less influential. While early experiences may still influence relationships in adulthood, recent and salient attachment experiences are much more likely to influence the attachment working model enacted in a given interaction. Thus, in a leader–follower relationship, past relationships with other leaders or followers are likely to be more salient to a person's attachment style than the relationship with one's parents.

Indeed, the leader–follower relationship is a key attachment relationship since leaders serve as attachment figures for followers by providing security, comfort, and support to followers during times of need (Game, 2011). However, the power differential associated with the leader and follower roles creates a unique attachment relationship. This power differential is a distinguishing feature that is absent in many adult attachment relationships. Although the asymmetry of power may decrease the ability of the follower to upwardly influence the leader, the leader's power may also permit the leader to provide a safe haven for the follower during stressful situations. Such consideration by the leader promotes the development of follower self-reliance (i.e., the ability to navigate confidently and independently in the social world), which is only achieved when the follower feels supported and protected by close others (Game, 2011).

Empirical work examining the implications of attachment theory within the leader–follower relationship has demonstrated that secure attachment is associated with transformational leadership behaviors (Popper et al., 2000). In addition, secure attachment is associated with greater amounts of leadership experience (defined as the extent of responsibility and influence one has held), by way of higher levels of openness to experience and decreased trait anxiety (Popper & Amit, 2009). Research also suggests that secure leaders tend to be socialized charismatic leaders who seek positive outcomes on behalf of the collective they represent, while avoidant leaders are more likely to be personalized charismatic leaders who are motivated by self-serving objectives (Popper, 2002). Thus, previous work demonstrates the utility of examining the influence of attachment styles within the context of leader–follower relationships.

4. Attachment styles and authentic leadership/followership

In their self-based model of authentic leader and follower development, Gardner and colleagues (2005) asserted that the personal histories of leaders and followers will serve to influence their growth and self-awareness. Personal histories include a wide range of previous life experiences involving family, childhood, culture, education, role models, and prior leadership involvement (Luthans & Avolio, 2003). These experiences arise from relationships with others including family members, teachers, mentors, coaches, and other leaders. Hence, the personal histories (as they encapsulate interactional experiences with others) of persons who occupy leader and follower roles influence their attachment styles, since attachments are formed from these relationships. While the attachment styles of leaders and followers have not been previously discussed as influential within the context of authentic leader–follower relationships, it is likely that the personal histories of both parties are influenced by their attachment tendencies. For example, having parents who served as positive role models will impact the leader's or follower's personal experiences. Or through interactions with others, the leader or follower may develop an internalized moral perspective as a result of wrongs that he/she experienced growing up. Thus, attachment theory (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007) can inform interpretations of leaders'/followers' internal recounting of their personal history and offer insight into the development of authentic leaders/followers based upon both their positive and negative prior life experiences (Luthans & Avolio, 2003).

There are a number of similarities between descriptions of authentic leaders/followers and persons with secure attachment styles, which we highlight in Table 1. In constructing this table, we were of necessity selective in our choices of research to include because research on attachment theory is quite extensive. Although a comprehensive review of research devoted to attachment styles in adulthood is beyond the scope of this paper, interested readers will find Mikulincer and Shaver's (2007) review of this literature to be a valuable resource for developing theoretical and empirical work on attachment. Table 1 highlights some of the empirical evidence that supports our assertion that attachment security will facilitate the development and enactment of authentic leadership and followership. For example, as the table indicates, secure attachment has been associated with self-awareness (e.g. Mikulincer, 1995), relational transparency (e.g. Grabill & Kerns, 2000), balanced processing (e.g. Gentzler & Kerns, 2006), an internalized moral perspective (Popper, 2002), and authenticity in general (Gillath et al., 2010).

Table 1 Theoretical connections between authentic leadership/followership and secure attachment style.

Authentic leadership/followership Secure attachment style

Self-awareness is a process through which one comes to understand one's strengths, weaknesses, values, worldview and other unique parts of one's multifaceted self (Gardner et al., 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008). It encompasses meta-cognitive self-clarity (Chan, Hannah, & Gardner, 2005).

• Accurate and consistent self-assessment (compared with others' assessment) on a variety of dimensions (Mikulincer, 1995; Mikulincer, 1998a). • Greater cognitive accessibility of positive and negative self-relevant traits (Mikulincer, 1995). • Capable of introspection and reflection on both positive and negative aspects of relationships with attachment figures. Maintains coherency and consistency in reflections on attachment figure relationships (Davila & Cobb, 2003; Main et al., 1985). • Greater self-clarity (Davila & Cobb, 2003). • Tends to have higher assessments of self-esteem, self-competence, and other forms of self-appraisal (Kenny, Griffiths, & Grossman, 2005).

Relational transparency refers to presenting one's true self (as opposed to a fake self) to close others while openly taking in and sharing information regarding one's true thoughts and emotions (Walumbwa et al., 2008).

• More likely to self-disclose information and elicit disclosure from others (Grabill & Kerns, 2000; Keelan et al., 1998; Mikulincer & Nachshon, 1991). • Effectively uses emotional regulation to modulate anger when negotiating with attachment figures (Becker-Stoll, Delius, & Scheitenberger, 2001). • Assertive in expressing opinions and open to others doing the same (Kobak, Cole, Ferenz-Gillies, & Fleming, 1993). • Seeks feedback and is open to feedback (Brennan & Bosson, 1998; Carnelley, Israel, & Brennan, 2007).

Balanced processing involves objectively taking others' opinions along with relevant information into account before making decisions (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Authentic leaders consider the interests of the group even when those interests conflict with their own. Additionally, they are relatively impartial in evaluating and owning both their positive and negative qualities (Gardner et al., 2005).

• Accurately compares self to others on traits and competence (self-other differentiation) (Mikulincer, Orbach, & Iavnieli, 1998). • Tends to positively process information; more likely to process a wider range of both positive and negative information than insecure styles (Dykas & Cassidy, 2011). • Recalls memories in a manner more consistent with actual experience than insecure styles even if the experiences differed from expectations (Gentzler & Kerns, 2006; Mikulincer & Arad, 1999). • Processes negative emotions in a healthy manner (Mikulincer, Shaver, Cassidy, & Berant, 2009; Shaver, Mikulincer, Lavy, & Cassidy, 2009).

Internalized moral perspective involves an integrated form of self-regulation, which is guided by a mission, deeply rooted values, or a desire to make a difference (Shamir & Eilam, 2005; Walumbwa et al., 2008).

• Associated with transformational leadership behaviors (Popper et al., 2000) and more likely to be found among socialized charismatic leaders (Popper, 2002). • Guided by internal standards rather than external pressures when problem-solving with attachment partners (Pistole, 1989). • Less likely to lie and cheat (Gillath et al., 2010). • Feels guilt (negative emotions attributed to specific behaviors or events) rather than shame (negative self-attributions regarding stable characteristics) after violating others' trust (Gross & Hansen, 2000; Wei, Shaffer, Young, & Zakalik, 2005).

599A.S. Hinojosa et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 595–610

Given the extensive research demonstrating that attachment security is positively related to self-awareness, relational transparency, balanced processing, and an internalized moral perspective, we suggest:

Proposition 1. Persons in leader roles who possess more as opposed to less secure attachment styles are more likely to exhibit authentic leadership.

Proposition 2. Persons in follower roles who possess more as opposed to less secure attachment styles are more likely to exhibit authentic followership.

5. A typology of leader–follower attachment style combinations and associated levels of relationship authenticity

In Section 4, we drew from the attachment literature to argue that secure attachment is positively associated with authentic leadership/followership. Yet, the dynamics of the leader–follower dyad may influence the extent to which persons who occupy leader and follower roles achieve authenticity in the relationship, even though they may generally exhibit high levels of each AL component. Indeed, one's authenticity varies along a continuum as a function of both individual differences (e.g., attachment styles) and contextual variables (discussed in Section 7). Therefore, individuals may be more or less authentic at any point in time within a given relationship (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). In this section, we consider the extent to which different attachment styles held by leaders and followers influence their realized and potential level of relational authenticity, and advance a typology of attachment-based variations in authentic leader–follower relationships.

Table 2 presents our typology of leader–follower relationships and the associated levels of realized and potential relational authenticity. Here, it is important to define the construct of relational authenticity that is central to the typology. A core assertion of Gardner and colleagues' (2005) self-based model is that, over time, leaders and followers who achieve higher levels of authenticity will develop an authentic relationship with one another. That is, “through their interactions the authentic leader and follower both come to know who they are, and how each impacts the other” (p. 348). Indeed, their conception of an authentic relationship is consistent

Table 2 A typology of leader–follower attachment style combinations and associated levels of relationship authenticity.

Follower attachment style

Leader attachment style

Authentic

Pseudo–authentic

Non–authentic

Pseudo–authentic

Pseudo–authentic

Anti–authentic

Non–authentic

Anti–authentic

Authenticity void

Secure leader

Insecure–ambivalent

Leader

Insecure–avoidant leader

Secure follower Insecure–ambivalent follower Insecure–avoidant follower

Note: The potential for relational authenticity is indicated by color gradation; the higher the potential for authenticity in the relationship, the lighter the color. The lower the potential for relational authenticity, the darker the color.

6 0 0

A .S.H

in ojosa

et al./

Th e Lead

ersh ip

Q u arterly

2 5 (2 0 1 4 ) 5 9 5 – 6 1 0

601A.S. Hinojosa et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 595–610

with the notion of a high quality relationship, as described in leader–member exchange (LMX) theory (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), in that the self-knowledge, balanced processing of self-relevant information, relational transparency, and self-verification (Swann, Rentfrow, & Guinn, 2003) that characterize these dyadic exchanges are posited to yield high levels of interpersonal trust, support and loyalty (Gardner et al., 2005). Thus, an authentic leader–follower relationship is characterized by high levels of self- and relational awareness and relational trust. Moreover, the application of attachment theory allows us to elucidate how leader/follower dyads might achieve or deviate from relational authenticity and further build on Kernis and Goldman's (2006) assertions that relational authenticity is associated with greater levels of attachment security within a relationship. As Kernis and Goldman (2006) point out, those relationships that lack relational authenticity may lead to inaccurate evaluations of the self and others. Given the importance of feedback for leader and follower development, such development may be hindered when dyads lack relational authenticity (Ilies et al., 2005; Popper & Lipshitz, 2000; Ryff & Keyes, 1995).

The typology presented in Table 2 reflects the logic of Propositions 1 and 2, as well as the construct of relational authenticity described above. In the upper left-hand corner of the table, we consider the interaction of two securely attached individuals. In this case, both the leader and follower are posited to possess high levels of all four AL components, and hence a high quality, authentic leader–follower relationship is likely to ensue. That is, a dyad that includes a secure leader and a secure follower enhances each individual's tendencies toward authenticity, and hence the development of relational authenticity. Recent research by Richards and Hackett (2012) supports this assertion; specifically, they found that in dyads that include two secure individuals, the leader–member relationship is much higher in quality than those that include one secure and one insecure-ambivalent. Moreover, we suggest that this cell reflects the ideal case highlighted in foundational work on AL, and thus this is the combination where the positive outcomes suggested to arise from authentic leadership are most likely to be realized (Gardner et al., 2005; Ilies et al., 2005). This discussion suggests the following proposition:

Proposition 3. Interpersonal relationships between leaders and followers who both possess secure attachment styles will yield the highest levels of relational authenticity.

The other eight cells of Table 2 suggest how leader–follower dyads that include at least one insecure (either avoidant or ambivalent) individual may deviate from an authentic relationship. Indeed, given that insecure individuals are hesitant to trust others, dyads that include such persons are unlikely to be characterized by high levels of relational authenticity. While there are subtle differences in cognitive representations in the two insecure attachment styles, there are great differences in the behavioral strategies of insecure-ambivalent and insecure-avoidant persons. As such, it is important to distinguish between the two styles when discussing how they interact with others. Indeed, the main distinction between the two insecure attachment styles made by attachment researchers pertains to differences in their behavioral interactions with others. In fact, ambivalent people tend to exhibit hyperactivated attachment needs (e.g., they are extremely dependent and clingy) during interactions with close others, while the interactions of avoidant people typically reflect deactivated attachment needs (e.g., they tend to minimize contact and closeness with others and resist dependency). These interaction patterns are consistent with organizational research on attachment styles that uses the term overdependent to describe the insecure-ambivalent attachment style and counterdependent when referring to the insecure-avoidant style (e.g. Little, Nelson, Wallace, & Johnson, 2011).

We contend that these deviations result in an array of inauthentic relationships that we label pseudo-authentic, non-authentic, anti-authentic, and authenticity-void. Note that although these categories of relationships in their current state lack authenticity, with the help of attachment interventions and leader and/or follower development (discussed in Section 6), some could evolve into authentic leader–follower relationships. We denote the potential for the relationship to become authentic by color gradation in the table; relationships with more (less) potential for authenticity are represented by lighter (darker) colors. Thus, the most authentic relationship is depicted by the box with the lightest shading; the relationships with the least potential for authenticity are depicted with the darkest shading. In other words, we depict the depth of dysfunction in each dyad. This gradation of shading implies that the most deeply dysfunctional relationships occur most often when insecure persons occupy leader roles, because the patterns of behavior associated with attachment insecurity coupled with the power inherent to the leader's role constitute a particularly toxic combination (Game, 2011).

5.1. Pseudo-authentic relationships

We describe the ambivalent-secure and ambivalent-ambivalent dyads as pseudo-authentic because both the leader and follower may consider the relationship to be authentic, when it is not likely to be fully authentic due to the attachment tendencies of ambivalent individuals. While persons with ambivalent attachment styles often exhibit what appears to be relational transparency because of their eagerness to share personal information, such hyper-disclosure inhibits open information processing in the dyadic relationship (Grabill & Kerns, 2000; Mikulincer & Nachshon, 1991). In other words, although both the leader and the follower in this dyad may exhibit high self-disclosure, the tendency of the ambivalent member(s) of the dyad to focus on personal disclosures, while ignoring those of the others, can hinder reciprocal transparency. Indeed, because both parties are likely to focus on their own disclosures, without fully listening to or responding to the disclosures of the other party, the resultant relationship will be superficial and lack the depth and trust that arises from the reciprocal disclosures found in authentic relationships. However, we expect pseudo-authentic relationships in which the leader possesses a secure attachment style to have greater potential for achieving relational authenticity due to the elevated level of interpersonal influence that is inherent to the leader role. That is, given the position and/or relational power associated with the leader role (French & Raven,

602 A.S. Hinojosa et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 595–610

1960), a secure leader in a pseudo-authentic relationship may positively influence an insecure follower to achieve authenticity, and thereby foster an authentic relationship.

5.2. Non-authentic relationships

Non-authentic relationships include one avoidant and one secure member in the leader–follower dyad. We characterize these relationships as non-authentic because the avoidant individual is not likely to reciprocate the authenticity exhibited by the secure party. The lack of relational authenticity stems from the avoidant party's minimization of meaningful interaction with others (Becker-Stoll et al., 2001; Collins, Cooper, Albino, & Allard, 2002). Just as avoidant individuals are prone to blocking out attempts of romantic partners to foster intimacy (Keelan et al., 1998), they may be inclined to block attempts to promote relational transparency in the leader–follower relationship. Here again, we expect that non-authentic relationships will have greater potential for authenticity when the leader is the party with a secure attachment style, due to the relatively high levels of positional and/or relational resources (French & Raven, 1960) available to the leader to support follower development.

5.3. Anti-authentic relationships

Anti-authentic relationships arise when one member of the leader–follower dyad is avoidant and the other is ambivalent. These relationships are perhaps the least functional and possess the lowest potential for authenticity, because both the leader and follower possess insecure attachment styles, and the defense mechanisms associated with their styles are polar opposites. For example, while avoidants deal with relationship insecurity by distancing themselves from others, ambivalents become overly dependent and clingy (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). We characterize this combination as anti-authentic because the behavioral strategies employed by people with these two attachment styles are the antithesis of each other. The contrast between the defense mechanisms employed by the ambivalent and avoidant attachment styles can create a dysfunctional push–pull cycle in which the ambivalent pushes to become closer to the avoidant, and the avoidant in return attempts to pull away from the ambivalent to become more distant. This cycle of dysfunction in anti-authentic relationships makes it unlikely that such leader–follower dyads will be effective in any context.

While this combination of attachment styles is particularly dysfunctional (cf. Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007, pp. 285–345) in any dyad, and especially likely to produce a low quality relationship (Richards & Hackett, 2012), the power associated with the role of the leader enhances the likelihood that the avoidant leader will capitalize on the ambivalent individual's neediness (Popper, 2002). Thus, we expect the greatest dysfunction and the lowest potential for relational authenticity to occur when an avoidant leader works with an ambivalent follower.

5.4. Authenticity void

For this relationship category, there is no pretense of authenticity because both the leader and follower have avoidant attachment styles. While there is a match in leader–follower attachment styles, both parties tend to avoid close interaction and relational transparency. In this situation, any seemingly transparent interaction may be treated with distrust (e.g., Mikulincer & Horesh, 1999; Zhang & Hazan, 2002). Furthermore, in contrast to an authentic relationship that is characterized by information sharing and processing with a general positivity bias (Dykas & Cassidy, 2011), an authenticity void involves little information sharing. When information is shared, both the leader and follower are predisposed to process it with a negative bias that undermines trust (Mikulincer & Horesh, 1999) and the potential for relational authenticity.

Based on our typology of leader–follower attachment style combinations and associated levels of relational authenticity, we advance the following propositions:

Proposition 4. Leader and follower attachment styles will interact to influence the potential for currently inauthentic relationships to achieve relational authenticity, such that pseudo-authentic, non-authentic, and authenticity void relationships will have the greatest potential to achieve relational authenticity and anti-authentic relationships will have the least.

Proposition 5. For currently inauthentic relationships, secure leader–insecure follower attachment style dyads possess the greatest potential for relational authenticity, followed by insecure leader–secure follower and insecure leader–insecure follower dyads, respectively.

6. Developing relational authenticity within the leader–follower dyad

6.1. Promoting relational authenticity through leader and follower influence: Dynamic interactional models

Theories of AL development and attachment change suggest that leader–follower relationships which are not currently authentic can move toward a more authentic relationship in a number of ways. In Figs. 1 and 2, we present dynamic interactional models that depict how currently inauthentic dyads will interact by default (on a day-to-day basis), and how they might develop relational authenticity through the use of AL development and attachment-based interventions.

Fig. 1 depicts the potential interactions between a secure leader and an insecure follower, while Fig. 2 shows the potential interactions between an insecure leader and a secure follower. We do not highlight the relationships that include two insecure individuals because the congruency between the insecure attachment styles makes it unlikely that the parties will develop

Figure Key ___ Typical leader-follower interaction

- - - Leader-follower interaction aided by attachment and AL interventions

Intervention loop size reflects difference in time and effort required to

move the relationship toward reciprocal authenticity

Person with greater power in the relationship (also indicated by the

boldface font)

Fig. 1. Dynamic model of attachment-based authentic followership development.

603A.S. Hinojosa et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 595–610

attachment security within the dyad, and thus the relationship is unlikely to become authentic. In each figure, the variations in insecurity are illustrated by two different paths: the ambivalent style path is represented by the letter “a” and the avoidant style path is represented by the letter “b.” These models depict two processes of leader–follower interaction: the first depicts a typical leader–follower interaction (indicated by solid lines), and the second depicts the potential developmental paths aided by interventions (indicated by dotted arrows). In the first interaction process, the leader initiates interaction with the follower (Path 1), and the follower responds (Path 2). However, the manner in which the leader and follower interact with each other is strongly influenced by their attachment styles and the current state of their leader–follower relationship. For example, a secure leader is likely to be authentic with the follower, but an avoidant follower is unlikely to reciprocate. In the second interaction process (Paths 3 and 4), leader/follower interventions are introduced.

It is important to note that in both figures the power inherent to the leader's role is depicted by the use of a boldface font and the bold outline of the box. As noted above, the position (e.g., manager, supervisor) and relational power (French & Raven, 1960) associated with the leader role provides the leader with greater resources for impacting the dynamics of the leader–follower relationship (DeRue & Ashford, 2010). Further, in settings with formal, hierarchical roles, the leader is likely to be granted even more power (DeRue & Ashford, 2010). Indeed, the leader's power allows him or her to set the tone for the relationship, thus enabling or inhibiting authenticity. In contrast, a secure follower is less able to influence an insecure leader to move toward secure attachment and authentic leadership, because of the power imbalance inherent within leader–follower dyads. Therefore, the interactions depicted begin with a leader initiating action with the follower in Path 1.

In Path 1, the leader initiates the interaction with the follower, either exhibiting authentic leadership in the case of the secure leader (Fig. 1), or a form of inauthentic leadership in the case of the insecure leader (Fig. 2). Path 2 reflects the interaction style of the follower, which would involve either authentic followership in the case of the secure follower (Fig. 2), or a form of inauthentic followership in the case of the insecure follower (Fig. 1). For example, in Fig. 1, the secure leader directs authentic leadership behavior toward the follower (Path 1). However, the ambivalent follower will respond to such authentic leadership with pseudo-authenticity (Path 2a). As this figure suggests, such pseudo-authenticity is driven by the follower's ambivalent attachment style. In this dyad, the securely attached leader may perceive the relationship as authentic due to a positively biased general cognitive style for processing

Figure Key ___ Typical leader-follower interaction

- - - Leader-follower interaction aided by attachment and AL interventions

Intervention loop size reflects difference in time and effort required to

move the relationship toward reciprocal authenticity

Person with greater power in the relationship (also indicated by the

boldface font)

Fig. 2. Dynamic model of attachment-based authentic leadership development.

604 A.S. Hinojosa et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 595–610

social information (Thompson, 2008). The pseudo-authenticity in the relationship, however, stems from the follower's ambivalent attachment style, in that the follower (because of biased views of him- or herself and the leader) tends to perceive the relationship in less clear and more negative ways than may actually be the case. In this type of relationship, the secure leader's self-awareness and ability to process information in a balanced way may help the leader become aware of the pseudo-authenticity of the follower.

Similarly, in a pseudo-authentic relationship between an ambivalent leader and a secure follower (depicted in Path 1a of Fig. 2), the leader is inclined to engage in heightened levels of social information processing (Dewitte, De Houwer, Buysse, & Koster, 2008). Specifically, ambivalent leaders will tend to view a relationship with a follower as being particularly important (Bretherton & Munholland, 2008), while at the same time characterizing it more negatively (because of biased views of the self and follower) than is warranted. A securely attached follower, in turn, may be less able to recognize the pseudo-authentic actions of the leader because of the power-differential (Kahn & Kram, 1994; Pfeffer, 1981), as well as the positivity bias inherent to the secure attachment style.

The non-authentic relationship between a secure leader and an avoidant follower is depicted in Fig. 1, Path 2b. In this dyad, the secure leader may attempt to develop an authentic relationship with the avoidant follower, but the avoidant follower is unlikely to be responsive to such overtures. Therefore, the non-authentic interactions in this relationship stem from the interactional style typical of avoidant persons. Unlike ambivalent persons, avoidant individuals are not inclined to create a false sense of authenticity in their interactions, as they tend to resist any close interactions with leaders, and tend to be low on the four components of authentic followership. Thus, in this dyad, the positive outcomes posited and documented by AL theory and research (Gardner et al., 2005; Gardner et al., 2011; Ilies et al., 2005)—particularly those accruing for the follower and the relationship—are unlikely to be realized. Nevertheless, the self-awareness of the secure leader should facilitate his or her recognition that problems in the relationship may arise from the follower's interaction style.

In contrast, the non-authentic relationship between an avoidant leader and a secure follower (depicted in Fig. 2, Path 1b) is likely to be even less functional, because the leader enjoys a power advantage, sets the tone for interactions, and acts as a role model. The non-authentic relationship in this case stems from the leader's avoidant attachment style, which drives the leader to exhibit low levels of the four components of authentic leadership. While the secure follower may attempt to be authentic, his or her

605A.S. Hinojosa et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 595–610

self-awareness and balanced processing may lead him or her to quickly realize that authentic followership may not lead to positive outcomes in typical interactions with this leader. Again, because the follower has less power, he or she may have difficulty upwardly influencing the insecure leader. These inauthentic interactions are likely to continue unless a catalyst is introduced to move the relationship toward relational authenticity.

Paths 3 and 4 (depicted with curved, dotted lines) reflect avenues that may lead to the development of relational authenticity through the introduction of attachment and AL developmental interventions. Again, we differentiate between the paths taken by the two insecure attachment styles. Because avoidant persons are likely to be particularly resistant to interventions, it may take more time and effort to move them toward security than that required to move an ambivalent person toward attachment security. Thus, the paths for avoidant individuals are wider, representing the additional time and energy that is needed to move non-authentic relationships toward reciprocal authenticity.

6.2. Developing security and authentic leader–follower relationships through attachment and authentic leadership interventions

In this subsection we build on the extant literature on authentic leader/follower development to suggest that targeting the development of attachment security can complement and enhance processes designed to develop authentic leaders and followers. Interestingly, self-reflection is posited to be critical to the development of both attachment security and authentic leadership/ followership (Avolio & Wernsing, 2008; Bowlby, 1988; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Just as AL development theory suggests that something must trigger self-reflection, attachment theory suggests that self-reflection must likewise be triggered before individuals will contemplate a change in attachment style (Bowlby, 1988; Davila & Cobb, 2003, 2004). Avolio and Wernsing (2008, p. 155) define trigger moments as “moments [which] cause leaders to pause and reflect on the meaning of the event and implications for their current and future leadership.” Thus, leaders or followers might provide their own trigger moments by asking questions that probe such self-reflective processes. However, Bowlby (1988) suggested that for a person to truly embrace a process of self-discovery, the person must first feel safe to explore and engage in this self-reflective process. Thus, when insecure persons are asked to engage in self-reflection, they are unlikely to engage in any meaningful self-assessments unless they have a secure base to help them interpret and adjust to the self-revelations generated.

In the context of a leader/follower development program, if individuals do not believe that their interaction partners (e.g., coaches, dyadic members, other participants) will provide a secure base, they will be unlikely to engage in self-reflection or other practices geared towards enhancing authenticity. This assertion is consistent with research that indicates psychological safety is a prerequisite for employee voice (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). If instead of providing a secure base, significant others are inconsistent in their support (e.g., sometimes ridiculing and sometimes encouraging attempts at self-reflection and growth), it is unlikely that insecurely-attached persons will achieve the level of self-awareness necessary to facilitate any further development in their attachment or interactional style within the leader–follower dyad.

As AL scholars have suggested, positive modeling may be an important way to establish a secure base and sense of psychological safety (Gardner et al., 2005; Ilies et al., 2005). In particular, the secure person in the dyad or an external trainer (perhaps a trainer facilitating a leadership development program) can model self-reflective practices and effective responses to such exercises, thereby demonstrating a safe and encouraging environment for self-exploration. However, for persons with avoidant styles who possess a general lack of trust and resistance of closeness, Avolio and Wernsing's (2008) suggestions for starting gradually with self-observation practices such as mindfulness and journaling could help ease them into self-reflection.

Once the secure base and psychological safety have been established, other practices can help increase self-awareness, such as 360° feedback, requesting informal feedback from others, and self-observation (Avolio & Wernsing, 2008). Bowlby (1988) likewise highlighted the importance of feedback in helping others work toward attachment security. Thus, the person serving as the secure base for exploration (e.g., the secure individual in the dyad) can help the other to gradually become aware of interactional tendencies (e.g., clinginess for persons with ambivalent styles; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), inaccuracies in self-perceptions (e.g., defensive self-enhancement for persons with avoidant styles; Mikulincer et al., 1998; Mikulincer et al., 2009), and other general biases (e.g., the insecure person's negativity bias; Dykas & Cassidy, 2011; Meyer, Pilkonis, & Beevers, 2004), which may be influencing the leader– follower relationship.

Bowlby (1988) also suggested that to develop attachment security, insecure individuals must explore their interactional tendencies in real-time and analyze the potential roots of those tendencies (e.g., past toxic relationships). Within the context of a leader–follower dyad, this would require reflections on one's personal history and attempting to understand how it shaped one's identity as a leader or follower (Gardner et al., 2005). For example, if a person has previously worked with abusive leaders, they may enact an insecure attachment style in other leader–follower relationships. Upon reflection, however, this person may begin to realize the source of the insecurity and move away from such maladaptive tendencies. Here, it is important to reiterate that insecure attachment styles are developed as a coping mechanism invoked in response to inconsistent or nonexistent support from attachment figures in addressing one's needs (Bowlby, 1988). Yet the insecure styles often remain after the lack of consistent support has been corrected. Thus, effective leader–follower development programs should help others to become more aware of their insecure attachment styles, and then help them to recognize that such styles undermine relational authenticity within leader–follower dyads.

After fostering self-awareness by engaging in self-observation, self-reflection, and informal and formal feedback seeking, Avolio and Wernsing (2008) suggest additional practices for developing authentic leaders. For example, leaders and followers can promote balanced processing by seeking feedback from others and objectively analyzing the information through adaptive conflict (Avolio, 2005). Similarly, relational transparency can be enhanced through the open sharing of relevant personal information. For

606 A.S. Hinojosa et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 595–610

example, Bill George (2003) in True North and the Center for Authentic Leadership (2008), advocate the sharing of crucible stories to foster transparency between leaders and followers. Complimentary developmental exercises such as those available through Mary Gentile's (2010, 2012) Giving Voice to Values program are designed to increase individuals' confidence in their ability to express and live by their values.

Although the practices reviewed above may facilitate authentic leadership/followership by helping insecure leaders and followers move toward a more secure attachment style, there are some caveats to these approaches. First, attachment theory suggests that without the provision of a secure base at the commencement of this process of self-exploration, subsequent efforts to develop security are unlikely to be fruitful (Bowlby, 1988). Furthermore, although any secure individual can provide the support necessary for an insecure party to embark on the process of building security and authenticity, it is crucial that the intervention target perceives the other party as a secure base. Similar to DeRue and Ashford's (2010) suggestions that leader and follower identities are granted by others and accepted or rejected by the focal actor, the secure base must be granted this identity by the insecure party. For example, when the person encouraging self-reflection occupies the leader role, an insecure follower may be more likely to perceive him or her as providing a secure base, due to the power differential inherent to leader–follower relationships (e.g., Game, 2011). Nevertheless, secure followers may be more likely to constructively challenge the leader, as they take a more proactive view of the follower role (Carsten, Uhl-Bien, West, Patera, & McGregor, 2010); hence, they may be quite effective in helping the leader to develop attachment security and achieve relational authenticity.

7. Discussion

As leaders and followers in organizations strive to foster authentic relationships with one another, it is important to recognize that they do not come to the relationship as a blank slate. To the contrary, they have a developmental history that impacts their capacity for authenticity. Attachment theory provides a useful lens for understanding the extent to which leaders and followers are capable of developing authentic relationships. Our review suggests that individuals with secure versus insecure attachment styles may be more likely to establish authentic relationships, and thus extremely insecure attachment styles may constitute a boundary condition under which AL is unlikely to flourish and/or be effective.

While we have focused on elaborating the variations in the levels of realized and potential authenticity that are posited to arise in dyadic interactions between leaders and followers, it is important to also recognize the impact that the broader context may have on these interactions. For instance, Gardner, Fischer, and Hunt (2009) argue that both the omnibus (e.g., national and organizational culture, occupation and industry, time, and organization structure) and discrete (situational) context should be considered in understanding the challenges that emotional display rules raise for leaders striving to present genuine emotional displays. Likewise, other leadership scholars call for increased attention to the follower and context to advance a more comprehensive understanding of leadership (Hernandez et al., 2011).

At the team level, the attachment style of the unit leader may serve as a contextual variable that impacts authentic follower performance and development. Hannah and colleagues (2011) found that team leader authenticity was positively related to team authenticity, which in turn positively impacted team productivity and teamwork behaviors. Walumbwa and colleagues (2011) showed that AL served to enhance the collective psychological capital of work teams and team trust, which in turn led to elevated levels of group performance and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leroy et al. (in press) found that AL at the unit level provided a supportive context that enabled followers to better satisfy their basic psychological needs, which in turn facilitated elevated levels of work role performance. Finally, using a sample of military cadets, Harms, Spain, and Hannah (2011) demonstrated that subclinical traits impacted leader development, with “dark side” traits influencing the developmental trajectory of leaders. If followers find themselves in units led by persons who possess such “dark side” traits, opportunities for trust and authentic relationships may be limited. Together, these findings suggest that AL and team authenticity can serve to establish a context that may be more or less conducive to follower authenticity and the associated outcomes, suggesting that team leadership and authenticity are important boundary conditions for member authenticity.

At the organizational level, the organizational culture is also likely to serve as an important boundary condition, with positive ethical cultures facilitating leader and member authenticity (Gardner et al., 2005). Conversely, toxic cultures dominated by leaders and followers with insecure attachment styles and/or narcissistic tendencies (Harms et al., 2011) may facilitate negative ethical cultures and thus discourage relational authenticity. Hence, these cultures may exert such powerful constraints on authenticity that they negate the predisposition of leaders and followers with secure attachment styles to pursue authentic relationships.

8. Research directions

Although there is extensive theoretical and empirical support for the notion that secure attachments are positively related to each of the four basic components of authentic leadership/followership, direct empirical research is needed. In this section, we suggest how future research might test and build upon the propositions, typology, and dynamic models we advance.

8.1. Research implications for secure attachment and authentic leadership/followership

As an initial examination of the proposed relationships between AL and attachment style, a correlational design could be used similar to that employed by Popper et al. (2000). In a series of studies with officer cadets and commanders, these researchers explored the relationship between transformational leadership and attachment style. Specifically, various samples of cadets and

607A.S. Hinojosa et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 595–610

their commanders completed Bass's Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; 1985) along with Griffin and Bartholomew's Relationship Styles Questionnaire (RSQ; 1994) as measures of transformational leadership and attachment styles, respectively. A similar approach could be taken using the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) and the RSQ. Although finding evidence of relationships in the predicted directions between AL and attachment style using a design similar to Popper and colleagues (2000) would be an important first step, such findings would not provide clear support for the proposition that secure attachment style is a key antecedent to AL because the correlational design precludes causal inferences.

Therefore, to go beyond correlational analyses, our propositions could be examined using a longitudinal design whereby attachment style is assessed at organizational entry and AL is assessed a few months later through the administration of the ALQ (Walumbwa et al., 2008) or Authentic Leadership Inventory (Neider & Schriesheim, 2011) to both leaders and followers. This approach would provide stronger justification for making causal inferences regarding the relationships between secure attachment and authentic leadership/followership. To further bolster such inferences, additional research designed to triangulate findings from field studies with complimentary findings from experimental settings could be pursued.

Recently, experimental psychologists have devised reliable means of temporarily manipulating attachment styles through a priming methodology (for reviews of this methodology, see Gillath, Selcuk, & Shaver, 2008; Mikulincer, 2007). Utilizing this approach, Gillath et al. (2010) demonstrated that various overt and subliminal methods used to prime attachment security (e.g., recalling a time when someone close to them was available and supportive; presenting them with a word representative of attachment security) positively predicted both self-reported tendencies to be honest and actual honesty on a task presented to participants. Indeed, participants who were primed with attachment security were more likely to remain honest on the task. Hence, an approach similar to this could be used in combination with field studies to further explore the causal role that attachment style may play in AL development.

8.2. Research implications for testing the typology

To investigate the assertions we advance in our typology of leader–follower dyads, future research could employ polynomial regression (Edwards & Parry, 1993; Shanock, Baran, Gentry, Pattison, & Heggestad, 2010) to explore the influence of different combinations of leader and follower attachment styles on the authenticity of the relationship. Such research could investigate the impact of congruency between leader and follower attachment styles (or direction of discrepancy if incongruent) on work outcomes such as leader, follower, or dyadic performance (where objective measures are available), frequency of information-sharing, and/or level of feedback-seeking. This approach would allow future research to tease out the differential outcomes associated with each type of dyad indicated in our typology.

8.3. Research implications for testing interventions and the dynamic models

The dynamic models we introduce could be tested using recent advances in the application of statistical analyses to explore leadership development. Random coefficient modeling (RCM), and discontinuous growth modeling in particular, has enabled leadership scholars to more thoroughly examine leader development and specific predictors of change that may influence the trajectory of that development (Ployhart, Holtz, & Bliese, 2002). Utilizing a longitudinal design, future research could examine the natural trajectory of authentic leadership and followership and further explore how the various interventions we suggest impact that trajectory. Developmental programs could thus incorporate those interventions which are found to have the greatest positive influence on the trajectory of development toward authentic leadership and followership.

8.4. Research implications for future studies on attachment and authentic leadership

The introduction of attachment theory to the AL literature also paves the way for further empirical studies. For example, Avolio, Hannah, and colleagues (Avolio & Hannah, 2008; Hannah & Avolio, 2010; Hannah & Lester, 2009) introduced the construct of developmental readiness and suggested that persons at the highest levels of readiness are more receptive and capable of leader development. It is possible that building secure attachment styles could help individuals move to higher levels of developmental readiness and, conversely, insecure styles may hinder such movement. Given that both developmental readiness and attachment working models are initiated at birth and evolve through the lifespan, future integration of theory and research in this area could be fruitful in advancing the study and practice of AL development.

Another promising avenue for applying attachment theory to the study of AL would be through the life-stories approach described by Shamir and Eilam (2005). They suggest that life-stories—introspective narratives told by the focal leader—can be used to help leaders develop greater self-awareness and thus become more authentic. Toward this end, the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI: George, Kaplan, & Main, 1996; Main, Hesse, & Goldwyn, 2008), an elaborate qualitative protocol for assessing adult attachment styles, has considerable utility. Specifically, the AAI could be used independently, or in combination with the life-stories interview technique described by Shamir and Eilam (2005), to provide a richer understanding of the influence of attachment on leader and follower authenticity. Moreover, such techniques open the door for leadership scholars to triangulate the data generated with data obtained through other commonly used measures of attachment styles. For example, the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale-Relationship Structures questionnaire measures attachment in four different relationship structures; this questionnaire could be adapted to also measure the attachment style in leader–follower relationships (ECR-RS; Fraley, Heffernan, Vicary, & Brumbaugh, 2011). Additionally, the Self-Reliance Inventory (SRI; Joplin, Nelson, & Quick, 1999) was developed for attachment research in organizations, and thus

608 A.S. Hinojosa et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 595–610

could be useful in the further study of attachment styles and leadership. Together, these tools could be applied to collect rich data on attachment style change and thereby further our understanding of the processes of authentic leadership/followership development. Such understanding can in turn, provide organizations with useful tools for developing authentic leaders and followers and thereby enable them to more fully realize the considerable promise of AL theory and attachment theory. Developmental programs created from this integrated approach can thus bring Bowlby's assertions in the opening quote to fruition by enabling leaders and followers to develop a sense of security to deploy their talents to their best advantage.

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank Laura Little, Tyge Payne, our associate editor Ronald Riggio, and our three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on previous versions of this manuscript.

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Bell, S. M., & Stayton, D. S. (1971). Individual differences in strange-situation behavior of one-year-olds. In H. R. Schaffer (Ed.), The origins of human social relations (pp. 151–179). New York: Academic Press.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Avolio, B. J. (2005). Leadership development in balance: Made/born. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315–338. Avolio, B. J., & Hannah, S. T. (2008). Developmental readiness: Accelerating leader development. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60, 331–347. Avolio, B. J., & Wernsing, T. S. (2008). Practicing authentic leadership. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), Positive psychology: Exploring the best in people, Vol. 4. (pp. 147–165).

Westport: CT Greenwood Publishing Group. Baldwin, M. W., & Fehr, B. (1995). On the instability of attachment style ratings. Personal Relationships, 2, 247–261. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Becker-Stoll, F., Delius, A., & Scheitenberger, S. (2001). Adolescents' nonverbal emotional expressions during negotiation of a disagreement with mothers: An

attachment approach. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 344–353. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment (Vol. I). New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London: Tavistock. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. New York: Basic Books. Brennan, K. A., & Bosson, J. K. (1998). Attachment-style differences in attitudes toward and reactions to feedback from romantic partners: An exploration of the

relational bases of self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 699–714. Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (2008). Internal working models in attachment relationships: Elaborating a central construct in attachment theory. In J. Cassidy, & P. R.

Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 102–127) (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Brunnel, A. B., Kernis, M. H., Goldman, B. M., Heppner, W., Davis, B., Cascio, E. V., et al. (2010). Dispositional authenticity and romantic relationship functioning.

Personality & Individual Differences, 48, 900–905. Carnelley, K. B., Israel, S., & Brennan, K. A. (2007). The role of attachment in influencing reactions to manipulated feedback from romantic partners. European

Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 968–986. Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership

Quarterly(21), 543–562. Center for Authentic Leadership (2008). Retrieved from www.authenticleadership.com Chan, A., Hannah, S. T., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Veritable authentic leadership: Emergence, functioning, and impacts. In W. L. Gardner, B. J. Avolio, & F. O.

Walumbwa (Eds.), Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects and development (pp. 3–41). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science. Clapp-Smith, R., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Avey, J. B. (2009). Authentic leadership and positive psychological capital: The mediating role of trust at the group level of

analysis. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 15, 227–240. Collins, N. L., Cooper, M., Albino, A., & Allard, L. (2002). Psychosocial vulnerability from adolescence to adulthood: A prospective study of attachment style differences in

relationship functioning and partner choice. Journal of Personality, 70, 965–1008. Davidiovitz, R., Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Izsak, R., & Popper, M. (2007). Leaders as attachment figures: Leaders' attachment orientations predict

leadership-related mental representations and followers' performance and mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 632–650. Davila, J., & Cobb, R. J. (2003). Predicting change in self-reported and interviewer-assessed adult attachment: Tests of the individual difference and life stress

models of attachment change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 859–870. Davila, J., & Cobb, R. J. (2004). Predictors of changes in attachment security during adulthood. In W. S. Rholes, & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult attachment: Theory,

research, and clinical implications (pp. 133–156). New York: Giulford. DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of

Management Review, 35, 627–647. Dewitte, M., De Houwer, J., Buysse, A., & Koster, E. H. W. (2008). Proximity seeking in adult attachment: Examining the role of automatic approach–avoidance

tendencies. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 557–573. Dykas, M. J., & Cassidy, J. (2011). Attachment and the processing of social information across the life span: Theory and evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 19–46. Edwards, J. R., & Parry, M. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of

Management Journal, 36, 1577–1613. Fraley, R. C. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis and dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality & Social

Psychology Review, 6, 123–151. Fraley, R. C. (2007). A connectionist approach to the organization and continuity of working models of attachment. Journal of Personality, 75, 1157–1180. Fraley, R. C., Heffernan, M. E., Vicary, A. M., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2011). The experiences in close relationships—Relationships structures questionnaire: A method

for assessing attachment orientations across relationships. Psychological Assessment, 23, 615–625. French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1960). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright, & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics (pp. 607–623). New York: Harper & Row. Game, A. M. (2011). Leadership and attachment theory: Understanding interpersonal dynamics in leader–follower relations. In A. Bryman, D. Collison, K. Grint, B.

Jackson, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The Sage handbook of leadership (pp. 326–337). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2005). “Can you see the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower

development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 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, 1120–1145. Gardner, W. L., Fischer, D., & Hunt, J. G. (2009). Emotional labor and leadership: A threat to authenticity? The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 466–482. Gentile, M. C. (2010). Giving voice to values: How to speak your mind when you know what's right. New Haven: Yale University Press. Gentile, M. C. (2012). Giving voice to values curriculum. Available from http://www.babson.edu/faculty/teaching-learning/gvv/Pages/home.aspx Gentzler, A., & Kerns, K. (2006). Adult attachment and memory of emotional reactions to negative and positive events. Cognition & Emotion, 20, 20–42.

609A.S. Hinojosa et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 595–610

George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1996). Adult attachment interview protocol (3rd ed.). Berkley, CA: University of California at Berkeley. George, W. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gillath, O., Selcuk, E., & Shaver, P. (2008). Moving toward a secure attachment style: Can repeated security priming help? Social and Personality Psychology

Compass, 2, 1651–1666. Gillath, O., Sesku, A. K., Shaver, P. R., & Chun, P. S. (2010). Attachment, authenticity and honesty: Dispositional and experientially induced security can reduce self-

and other-deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 841–855. Grabill, C. M., & Kerns, K. A. (2000). Attachment style and intimacy in friendship. Personal Relationships, 7, 363–378. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over

25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly(6), 219–247. Griffin, D. W., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). The metaphysics of measurement: The case ofadult attachment. In K. Bartholomew, & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in

personal relationships, Vol. 5. (pp. 17–52). London: Jessica Kingsley. Gross, C. A., & Hansen, N. E. (2000). Clarifying the experience of shame: The role of attachment style, gender, and investment in relatedness. Personality and

Individual Differences, 28, 897–907. Hannah, S. T., & Avolio, B. J. (2010). Ready or not: How do we accelerate the developmental readiness of leaders? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31,

1181–1187. Hannah, S. T., & Lester, P. B. (2009). A multilevel approach to building and leading learning organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 34–48. Hannah, S. T., Walumbwa, F. O., & Fry, L. W. (2011). Leadership in action teams: Team leader and members' authenticity, authenticity strength, and team

outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 64, 771–802. Harms, P. D. (2011). Adult attachment styles in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 285–296. Harms, P. D., Spain, S. M., & Hannah, S. T. (2011). Leader development and the dark side of personality. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 495–509. Hassan, A., & Ahmed, F. (2011). Authentic leadership, trust and work engagement. World Academy of Science, Engineering & Technology, 80, 750–756. Hernandez, M., Eberly, M. B., Avolio, B. J., & Johnson, M. D. (2011). The loci and mechanisms of leadership: Exploring a more comprehensive view of leadership

theory. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1165–1185. Hmieleski, K. M., Cole, M. S., & Baron, R. A. (2012). Shared authentic leadership and new venture performance. Journal of Management, 38, 1476–1499. Hoy, W. K., & Henderson, J. E. (1983). Principal authenticity, school climate, and pupil-control orientation. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 29, 123–130. Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader–follower outcomes. The Leadership

Quarterly, 16, 373–394. Jensen, S. M., & Luthans, F. (2006). Entrepreneurs as authentic leaders: Impact on employees' attitudes. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 27,

646–666. Joplin, J., Nelson, D., & Quick, J. (1999). Attachment behavior and health: Relationships at work and home. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 783–796. Kahn, W. A., & Kram, K. E. (1994). Authority at work: Internal models and their organizational consequences. Academy of Management Review, 19, 17–50. Keelan, J. P. R., Dion, K. K., & Dion, K. L. (1998). Attachment style and relationship satisfaction: Test of a self-disclosure explanation. Canadian Journal of Behavioral

Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportment, 30, 24–35. Keller, T. (2003). Parental images as a guide to leadership sensemaking: An attachment perspective on implicit leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 14,

141–160. Kenny, M. E., Griffiths, J., & Grossman, J. (2005). Self-image and parental attachment among late adolescents in Belize. Journal of Adolescence, 28, 649–664. Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 1–26. Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: Theory and research. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental

social psychology, Vol. 38. (pp. 283–357). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Kobak, R. R., Cole, H. E., Ferenz-Gillies, R., & Fleming, W. S. (1993). Attachment and emotion regulation during mother–teen problem solving: A control theory

analysis. Child Development, 64, 231–245. La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on

attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 367–384. Lemay, E. P., & Clark, M. S. (2008). “Walking on egg shells”: How expressing relationship insecurities perpetuates them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

95, 420–441. Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Gardner, W., & Sels, L. (2013). Authentic leadership, authentic followership, basic need satisfaction, and work role performance: A cross-level

study. Journal of Management (in press). Leroy, H., Palanski, M. E., & Simons, T. (2012). Authentic leadership and behavioral integrity as drivers of follower commitment and performance. Journal of

Business Ethics, 107, 255–264. Little, L. M., Nelson, D. L., Wallace, J. C., & Johnson, P. D. (2011). Integrating attachment style, vigor at work, and extra‐role performance. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 32, 464–484. Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership development. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship:

Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 241–261). San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler. Main, M., Hesse, E., & Goldwyn, R. (2008). Studying differences in language usage in recounting attachment history: An introduction to the AAI. In H. Steele, & M.

Steele (Eds.), Clinical applications of the Adult Attachment Interview (pp. 31–68). New York: Guilford Press. Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. In I. Bretherton, & E. Waters (Eds.),

Growing points of attachment theory and research (pp. 66–104). : Blackwell Publishing. Meyer, B. R., Pilkonis, P. A., & Beevers, C. G. (2004). What's in a (neutral) face? Personality disorders, attachment styles, and the appraisal of ambiguous social cues.

Journal of Personality Disorders, 18, 320–336. Mikulincer, M. (1995). Adult attachment and the mental representation of the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1203–1215. Mikulincer, M. (1998). Adult attachment style and individual differences in functional versus dysfunctional experiences of anger. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 74, 513–524. Mikulincer, M. (1998). Attachment working models and the sense of trust: An exploration of interaction goals and affect regulation. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 74, 1209. Mikulincer, M., & Arad, D. (1999). Attachment working models and cognitive openness in close relationships: A test of chronic and temporary accessibility effects.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 710–725. Mikulincer, M., & Horesh, N. (1999). Adult attachment style and the perceptions of others: The role of projective mechanisms. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 76, 1022–1034. Mikulincer, M., & Nachshon, O. (1991). Attachment styles and patterns of self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 321–331. Mikulincer, M., Orbach, I., & Iavnieli, D. (1998). Adult attachment style and affect regulation: Strategic variations in subjective self-other similarity. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 436–448. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. London: Guilford Press. Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Cassidy, J., & Berant, E. (2009). Attachment-related defensive processes. In J. H. Obegi, & E. Berant (Eds.), Attachment theory and

research in clinical work with adults (pp. 293–327). New York: Guilford Press. Mikulincer, M. P. R. (2007). Boosting attachment security to promote mental health, prosocial values, and inter-group tolerance. Psychological Inquiry, 18,

139–156. Moriano, J. A., Molero, F., & Mangin, J. -P. L. (2011). Authentic leadership: Concept and validation of the ALQ in Spain. Psicothema, 23, 336–341. Neider, L. L., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2011). The Authentic Leadership Inventory (ALI): Development and empirical tests. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1146–1164. Nelson, D. L., Quick, J. C., & Joplin, J. R. (1991). Psychological contracting and newcomer socialization: An attachment theory perspective. Journal of Social Behavior

and Personality, 6, 55–72.

610 A.S. Hinojosa et al. / The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 595–610

Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Boston: Pitman. Pistole, M. C. (1989). Attachment in romantic relationships: Style of conflict-resolution and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6,

505–510. Ployhart, R. E., Holtz, B. C., & Bliese, P. D. (2002). Longitudinal data analysis: Applications of random coefficient modeling to leadership research. The Leadership

Quarterly, 13, 455–486. Popper, M. (2002). Narcissism and attachment patterns of personalized and socialized charismatic leaders. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19,

797–809. Popper, M., & Amit, K. (2009). Attachment and leader's development via experiences. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 749–763. Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (2000). Organizational learning mechanisms, culture, and feasibility. Management Learning, 31, 181–196. Popper, M., & Mayseless, O. (2003). Back to basics: Applying a parenting perspective to transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 41–65. Popper, M., Mayseless, O., & Castelnovo, O. (2000). Transformational leadership and attachment. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 267–289. Randolph-Seng, B., & Gardner, W. (2013). Validating measures of leader authenticity: Relations between implicit/explicit self-esteem, situational cues, and leader

authenticity. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20, 212–229. Richards, D. A., & Hackett, R. D. (2012). Attachment and emotion regulation: Compensatory interactions and leader–member exchange. The Leadership Quarterly,

23, 686–701. Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719–727. Shanock, L. R., Baran, B. E., Gentry, W. A., Pattison, S. C., & Heggestad, E. D. (2010). Polynomial regression with response surface analysis: A powerful approach for

examining moderation and overcoming limitations of difference scores. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 543–554. Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. (2005). “What's your story?”: A life-stories approach to authentic leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 395–417. Shaver, P. R., Mikulincer, M., Lavy, S., & Cassidy, J. (2009). Understanding and altering hurt feelings: An attachment-theoretical perspective on the generation and

regulation of emotions. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Feeling hurt in close relationships (pp. 92–119). New York: Cambridge University Press. Simmons, B. L., Gooty, J., Nelson, D. L., & Little, L. M. (2009). Secure attachment: Implications for hope, trust, burnout, and performance. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 30, 233–247. 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, 304–332. Swann, W. B., Jr., Rentfrow, P. J., & Guinn, J. S. (2003). Self-verification: The search for coherence. In M. R. Leary, & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity

(pp. 367–383). New York: Guilford Press. Thompson, R. A. (2008). Attachment-related mental representations: introduction to the special issue. Attachment & Human Development, 10, 347–358. Toor, S., & Ofori, G. (2009). Authenticity and its influence on psychological well-being and contingent self-esteem of leaders in Singapore construction sector.

Construction Management and Economics, 27, 299–313. 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, 89–126. Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Oke, A. (2011). Authentically leading groups: The mediating role of collective psychological capital and trust. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 32, 4–24. Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group

psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology(94), 1275–1286. 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, 901–914. Wei, M., Shaffer, P. A., Young, S. K., & Zakalik, R. A. (2005). Adult attachment, shame, depression, and loneliness: The mediation role of basic psychological needs

Satisfaction. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 591–601. Wong, C. A., & Cummings, G. (2009). Authentic leadership: A new theory for nursing or back to basics? Journal of Health Organization and Management, 23,

522–538. Wong, C. A., Spence Laschinger, H. K., & Cummings, G. G. (2010). Authentic leadership and nurses' voice behaviour and perceptions of care quality. Journal of

Nursing Management, 18, 889–900. Zhang, F., & Hazan, C. (2002). Working models of attachment and person perception processes. Personal Relationships, 9, 225.

View publication statsView publication stats