Servant and Authentic Leadership

9 Vanguard Theories “Those who simplify the universe only reduce the expansion of its meaning.”

ANAÏS NIN

The vanguard cluster consists of theories that offer novel approaches to the study of leadership. Authentic, adaptive, and complexity leadership each share commonalities with other theoretical clusters, where they could just as easily be positioned for the sake of parsimony. However, each plays a substantive role in shaping contemporary thinking and, as such, is situated here to signal its relevance.

The vanguard cluster is malleable by design. The set of theories that comprise it today may not be the same a year, five years, or a decade from now. Yet, inclusion is not dictated solely by time. Adaptive leadership has existed for over 20 years while formal theorizing on complexity leadership has been around for only about half that time. What contributes to the inclusion of a theory in the vanguard cluster is the degree to which it pushes on the boundaries of how leadership is understood and manifest. The opening quote by Nin captures this desire to add complexity to our thinking, and vanguard theories aid in this. They are far from perfect, but the value added of their contributions lies in these imperfections.

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP For the past decade, authentic leadership has captivated scholars and practitioners attempting to make meaning of the egregious failures of leadership across both the public and private sectors (Avolio & Walumbwa, 2014; Caza & Jackson, 2011; Gardner, Cogliser, Davis, & Dickens, 2011; George, 2003; George & Sims, 2007). Political scandals, corruption on Wall Street, and allegations of child abuse by religious figures are just a few of the catalysts for perceptions that both individuals and institutions that were supposed to lead were instead violating the public's trust. It is important to note that this was not just a perfect storm of problems indicative of the time when authentic leadership first emerged. The same issues and many more continue to diminish public opinion about leaders and leadership.

That leaders would act with such disregard for their impact served as an impetus to examine the apparent vacuum of ethical and moral grounding in leadership. Authenticity emerged as a framework from which to address these concerns. George (2003) is often credited with reinvigorating efforts to integrate authenticity with leadership. His popular books (George, 2003, 2015; George, Craig, & Snooks, 2015; George & Sims, 2007) brought significant attention to the topic, cementing the term as inherently linked to “good” leaders and leadership in many people's informal theories. Concurrently, scholarship on authentic leadership boomed, with Luthans and Avolio (2003) playing a central role in establishing its prominence in the leadership studies literature.

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:25:26.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

The pace and vigor with which leadership studies adopted, theorized, and applied the concept of authentic leadership is, in and of itself, novel and validates its inclusion in the vanguard cluster. Authentic leadership is also novel in its attempt to situate itself as an underlying and requisite part of all prosocial theories of leadership (e.g., servant, transformational, social change model).

Overview So, I need to be candid. The body of literature on authentic leadership, while novel and important to leadership studies, is also … how should I put this … a mess. The rapidity with which scholars have delved into the subject matter and leaders have translated it to practice is astonishing. It has also resulted in competing definitional parameters, core tenets, component parts, and methods of measurement, making it exceptionally difficult to compare conceptualizations. Additionally, much of the literature is just that—conceptual (Avolio & Walumbwa, 2014). This is somewhat expected given how “young” the theory is in its development. However, things get further complicated given that several of the empirical studies that do exist and support the development of the theory have either been called into question for problematic research procedures or completely retracted from publication. This makes synthesizing content related to authentic leadership challenging.

To minimize confusion, we will only explore content from the scholarly line of inquiry that evolved from Luthans and Avolio's (2003) conceptualization of authentic leadership. This is not to suggest that popular press and more practical writing on the topic are not important or do not influence the larger body of work. However, focusing on the scholarly literature allows us to interpret content in more informed ways.

Points of Caution Let's start by walking through a number of cautions that emerge across the scholarly literature on authentic leadership:

There exists no unifying definition, theory, model, or measurement of authentic leadership (Gardner et al., 2011). Consensus simply has not been reached. There is some cohesion around core components outlined by Kernis (2003) and Kernis and Goldman (2006), which we will explore later.

Authenticity is often framed as a false dichotomy in which a person is either entirely authentic or entirely inauthentic. This reduces the concept to a static trait as opposed to a capacity that can be developed. It also ignores situational influences on how authenticity is manifest. Scholars typically position authenticity as a developmental construct and urge the use of more nuanced terminology that reflects gradations such as more or less authentic (Erickson, 1995; Gardner et al., 2011). However, writing on authentic leadership often fails to make this distinction, employing language that reinforces a good/bad, authentic/inauthentic dichotomy.

Scholarship on authentic leadership is leadercentric, often exacerbating staunch

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:25:26.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

differentiations between leaders and followers (Ladkin & Spiller, 2013; Yammarino et al., 2008). Most scholarship focuses on the actions of the leader, although these are understood in relation to followers' perceptions. Some attention is directed toward follower authenticity and the role that leaders play in developing it, although this reinforces leader/follower dichotomies and risks paternalism. Some suggest authentic leadership emerges from the relationship between the leader and follower as opposed to focusing on one or the other (Avolio & Walumbwa, 2014). The description of this, however, reflects more of an interactional approach than a relational one.

These cautions reflect points of tension in the literature that differentiate perspectives on what authenticity and authentic leadership are as well as how they operate. They are also important to keep in mind when interpreting and applying concepts.

Defining Authenticity So, what exactly is authenticity? This is a question that has troubled philosophers and scholars across cultural and political contexts from antiquity to today. Some of the earliest understandings date back to ancient Greece and the philosophical tenet “Know Thyself.” Modern conceptualizations typically position authenticity as the process of constructing a core sense of self that is consistent over time and across contexts (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gardner, Avolio, & Walumbwa, 2005; Gardner et al., 2011; Kernis & Goldman, 2006). Harter (2002) defined authenticity as “owning one's personal experiences, be they thoughts, emotions, needs, preferences, or beliefs, processes captured by the injunction to know oneself … one acts in accord with the true self, expressing oneself in ways that are consistent with inner thoughts and feelings” (p. 382).

Gardner et al. (2011) explained that authenticity is believed to consist of four elements, originally outlined by Kernis (2003) and Kernis and Goldman (2006), which include “(1) awareness (i.e., knowledge and trust in one's thoughts, feelings, motives and values); (2) unbiased processing (i.e., objectivity about and acceptance of one's positive and negative attributes); (3) behavior (i.e., acting based on one's true preferences, values, and needs rather than merely acting to please others, secure rewards, or avoid punishments); and (4) relational orientation (i.e., achieving and valuing truthfulness and openness in one's close relationships” (p. 1121). This understanding of authenticity and its constituent parts serves as the basis for most of the literature on authentic leadership (Avolio & Walumbwa, 2014; Gardner et al., 2005; Gardner et al., 2011).

Defining Authentic Leadership Before we explore how authentic leadership is defined, let's walk through three core premises that inform it:

Authentic leadership grows out of two specific bodies of literature. Positive psychology (i.e., a subset of psychology focused on optimal human functioning and emphasizing assets over deficits; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) served as a strong influence in shaping the interpretation of authenticity in the context of leadership (Luthans & Avolio, 2003).

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:25:26.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Additionally, many consider authentic leadership to be an extension of transformational leadership attempting to further the differentiation between positive enactments and negative, pseudotransformational ones (Caza & Jackson, 2011).

Together these bodies of literature position authentic leadership as fundamentally moral (Gardner & Avolio, 2005), a premise that did not appear in the original definitions of authenticity in which it is grounded.

Scholars increasingly argue that authentic leadership serves as a “root” construct that undergirds all prosocial leadership theories by providing a grounding in morals and ethics (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, & May, 2004; Luthans & Avolio, 2003). Thus, someone might practice authentic transformational leadership, authentic servant leadership, or authentic relational leadership.

Luthans and Avolio (2003) initially defined authentic leadership as “a process that draws from both positive psychological capacities and a highly developed organizational context, which results in both greater selfawareness and selfregulated positive behaviors on the part of leaders and associates, fostering positive selfdevelopment” (p. 243). This definition was later adjusted based on empirical research. Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, and Peterson (2008) defined authentic leadership as “a pattern of leader behavior that draws upon and promotes both positive psychological capacities and a positive ethical climate, to foster greater selfawareness, an internalized moral perspective, balanced processing of information, and relational transparency on the part of leaders working with followers, fostering positive selfdevelopment” (p. 94).

This shift in definitions reflects a more competencybased approach to authentic leadership, moving further away from original definitions of authenticity. Additionally, Walumbwa et al. (2008) deviated from Luthans and Avolio's (2003) assertions of the centrality of positive psychological capacities and ethical organizational climates. They argued instead that there was a reciprocal relationship between these concepts and the development of authentic leadership. Therefore, they remain foundational to understanding authentic leadership but not part of the core conceptualization.

Applying the Concept The four core competencies (i.e., selfawareness, relational transparency, balanced processing, and internalized moral perspective) identified in Walumbwa et al.'s (2008) definition of authentic leadership provide the focal point for translating the theory to practice (see Table 9.1 for definitions). Collectively, they represent the overarching construct of authentic leadership, with each component demonstrating unique contributions to the whole. Additionally, each construct is constituted by both a person's thoughts as well as behaviors. Essentially, enacting the competencies is equated with enacting authentic leadership.

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:25:26.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

TABLE 9.1 Core competencies associated with authentic leadership Adapted from: Avolio & Walumbwa, 2014; Walumbwa et al. (2008)

Competency Definition Self Awareness

Understands one's own process of deriving and making meaning of the world as well as how this influences the perspective of self over time; demonstrates understanding of personal strengths and weaknesses; recognizes the multifaceted nature of the “self”; gains selfperspective through social interactions; exhibits mindfulness of one's impact on others

Relational Transparency

Ability and willingness to present one's “authentic” self to others; promotes trust through disclosure and openness in sharing; communicates one's true thoughts and feelings while also reducing expression of inappropriate emotions; avoidance of selfrepresentations that are distorted or insincere

Balanced Processing

Ability to objectively analyze all relevant information prior to decision making; requests and legitimately considers information and perspectives that challenge deeply held positions

Internalized Moral Perspective

Draws on ethical values and moral standards in process of selfregulation; resists external pressures that conflict with internalized standards; demonstrates congruence between internalized values and behaviors

Positive psychological capacities influence the four key competencies of authentic leadership and in turn are influenced by them. So, what exactly are they? Luthans, Avolio, Avey, and Norman (2007) suggested they represent a form of psychological capital and are defined “as going beyond human (what you know) and social (who you know) capital to ‘who you are’ (your possible self) … . [and] involves investing in the actual self to reap the return of becoming the possible self” (Avolio & Luthans, 2006, p. 147). This investment occurs through ongoing development across three positive states: hope, optimism, and resilience (see Table 9.2).

TABLE 9.2 Positive psychological states associated with authentic leadership Adapted from: Avolio & Luthans (2006), Luthans et al. (2007)

State Definition Hope Motivation to accomplish goals (willpower); ability to identify multiple pathways

to achieve a goal (agency) Optimism Expectation of a positive outcome; internalization of successes; failures perceived

as temporary and a function of context Resiliency Adoption of patterns of positive adaptation to situations; the ability to bounce back

in the face of adversity or stress

As is the case with many competencybased and behavioral approaches to leadership, there is a lack of clarity about how the theory functions beyond enactment of the core concepts. The

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:25:26.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

principle is largely to just do more of what the theory values. Avolio and Walumbwa (2014) suggested that the enactment of authentic approaches “should be highly valued by followers and indeed emulated in that followers would come to identify with and trust authentic leaders to a great extent” (p. 339). This situates role modeling as well as trust building as primary considerations in translating authentic leadership to practice.

How Research Evolves the Concept Making sense of the empirical research on authentic leadership can be challenging given the wide array of measurement tools that exist. The Authentic Leadership Questionnaire is used most often and reflects Walumbwa et al.'s (2008) definition of the theory (Banks, McCauley, Gardner, & Guler, 2016; Gardner et al. 2011). The instrument demonstrates crosscultural and crosscontext reliability, although more work is needed to verify the extent of this (Avolio & Walumbwa, 2014; Walumbwa & Wernsing, 2013).

Leadership Outcomes Findings link authentic leadership enactment by leaders to outcomes such as increased teamwork, trust, group performance, follower satisfaction and engagement, and organizational citizenship behaviors (Bamford, Wong, & Laschinger, 2013; ClappSmith, Vogelgesang, & Avey, 2009; Giallonardo, Wong, & Iwasiw, 2010; Leroy, Anseel, Gardner, & Sels, 2015; Walumbwa et al., 2008; Wong & Giallonardo, 2013; Wong, Spence Laschinger, & Cummings, 2010). Much of the research is predicated on perceptions of leader authenticity by followers. Additionally, Steffens, Mols, Haslam, and Okimoto (2016) found that followers' perceptions of leader authenticity were enhanced by the degree to which they believed the leader both advocated for collective interests over personal ones and was a member of the group rather than an outsider.

Distinctiveness as a Theory There is some concern about the extent to which authentic leadership is distinctive from other theories that incorporate moral and ethical perspectives (Avolio & Walumbwa, 2014; Banks et al., 2016). Walumbwa et al. (2008) provided empirical evidence that as a root construct authentic leadership is related to transformational and ethical leadership but also offers explanatory value above and beyond those theories. Banks et al. (2016), however, identified a high degree of correlation between authentic and transformational leadership, suggesting a significant overlap between the concepts. Although they expressed concern about this, they also acknowledged that further research is needed to clarify the issue.

WrapUp Practitioners and scholars alike seem enthralled with authentic leadership, and the theory most certainly demonstrates considerable potential. However, Walumbwa and Wernsing (2013) admitted that while “authentic leadership is believed by scholars to foster a range of positive outcomes and reduce counterproductive behaviors, the how and why of these relationships has

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:25:26.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

remained largely unexplored” (p. 397). Avolio and Walumbwa (2014) go a step further by urging caution regarding the rapidity with which authentic leadership has been adopted, suggesting that the integration of what are still nascent and unvalidated ideas into training and development programs is risky. More than almost any other theory, scholars of authentic leadership seem to blur the boundaries of statements based on evidence versus mere conjecture. In sum, authentic leadership presents a novel approach that attempts to extend the work of transformational leadership theories, but its novelty also serves as one of its greatest weaknesses. Table 9.3 provides additional strengths and weaknesses.

TABLE 9.3 Strengths and weaknesses of authentic leadership

Strengths Weaknesses

Extends the understanding of prosocial leadership theories by identifying authentic leadership as a root construct

Positions ethical and moral values as drivers of leadership

Incorporates the concept of psychological capital as a foundation with attention toward hope, optimism, and resilience

Leadercentric in design and treatment of followers

Lack of conceptual clarity contributing to multiple interpretations of the theory, its core concepts, and measurement

Remains largely conceptual with limited empirical testing, some of which is identified as problematic

Making Connections

How might authentic leadership reflect dominant norms associated with social location? To what extent might exhibiting authenticity be dangerous based on power dynamics?

What stands out as useful about authentic leadership? What do you think needs to be addressed in the deconstruction and reconstruction processes?

ADAPTIVE LEADERSHIP Adaptive leadership is included in the vanguard cluster given the degree to which it disrupts common sense understandings about leaders and leadership. Initially introduced by Heifetz (1994), and advanced over the years in collaboration with other scholars (Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009; Heifetz & Linsky, 2002), the purpose of adaptive leadership is to provide a pragmatic approach. However, pragmatism in Heifetz's world is clearly a relative term; his concepts are complex and disrupt many of the commonly held assumptions about what leadership is, its central purpose, and how it functions.

Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:25:26.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .