Abstract
Based on 214 primary studies (N = 196,300), the current study employed meta-analytical techniques to examine the antecedents and outcomes of authentic leadership, and whether cultural differences at the national level and research designs moderated the relationships between authentic leadership and all outcomes. Our findings revealed that leaders’ emotional intelligence and the organizational ethical climate was significantly related to authentic leadership, and that authentic leadership was significantly related to a wide variety of subordinate-, leader-, and performance-related outcomes. Moreover, leader-member exchange and follower job satisfaction was found to mediate the relationship between authentic leadership and both follower job performance and OCB, and cultural differences (i.e., power distance and individualism) were found to moderate the relationships between authentic leadership and its outcomes. We also ran supplementary analysis to explore the influence of follower features and research design.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Since it was proposed by Luthans and Avolio (2003), the construct of authentic leadership has attracted a great deal of research interest. Authentic leadership has been defined as “a pattern of leader behaviour 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 subordinates, fostering positive self-development” (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Numerous studies have found empirical evidence for the positive effects of authentic leadership on various organizational and personal outcomes such as work motivation (Giallonardo et al., 2010; van den Bosch & Taris, 2014), job satisfaction (Wong & Laschinger, 2013), job performance (Leroy et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2014), and organizational citizenship behavior (Shapira-Lishchinsky & Tsemach, 2014).
However, researchers have also questioned the effects authentic leadership on important outcomes. For example, Alvesson and Einola (2019) has challenged the contribution of authentic leadership research by warning that authentic leadership represents an “excessive positivity fashion” in leadership studies. Empirical studies have also provided inconsistent findings of the relationship between authentic leadership and outcomes. For example, some studies have found that authentic leadership was positively associated with work engagement (e.g., Alok & Israel, 2012; Cerne et al., 2014; Parr & Hunter, 2014), while others does not support this proposition (e.g., Seco & Lopes, 2013). Therefore, with the aim of resolving these controversies and expanding our knowledge we conducted a meta-analysis of the nomological network of constructs to which authentic leadership is related.
Although the current study is not the first meta-analysis of empirical research on authentic leadership, it is superior in terms of its theoretical model and analytical techniques. To the best of our knowledge, there are two published meta-analyses on authentic leadership, Miao, Humphrey and Qian (2018) which looks exclusively at the antecedents of authentic leadership, and Banks et al. (2016), which examines the bivariate relation between authentic leadership and its outcomes. The present study is superior in three main ways. First, rather than simply showing the bivariate relationship between authentic leadership and outcomes as in Banks et al. (2018), we use meta-analytic structural equation modelling (MASEM) to investigate two mechanisms leader-member exchange (LMX) and job satisfaction) through which authentic leadership has been argued to influence outcomes. We focus on LMX because many researchers have used social exchange theory to explain the positive effects of authentic leadership (e.g., Wang et al., 2014), and LMX is the most established concept that explicitly captures the quality of dyadic relationships between leaders and their followers. In addition, we focus on job satisfaction rather than other follower attitudinal variables, because it is the most studied attitudinal construct in applied psychology (Judge et al., 2017).
Furthermore, in order to explain why the influence of authentic leadership may vary across different studies, we examine the moderating effects of cultural differences. Although authentic leadership scholars have called for investigation of the effects of authentic leadership on people across diverse cultural backgrounds (Gardner et al., 2011), to our knowledge, the influence of culture has only been examined in a few empirical studies at individual level (e.g., traditionality in Li et al., 2014b). A meta-analysis provides an efficient way of investigating how cultural dimensions predict the influence of authentic leadership (Fig. 1).
Finally, given that empirical work on authentic leadership has increased in the past several years, our meta-analysis includes more recently published empirical studies than prior meta-analyses. Therefore, the number of effect sizes included in our study is significantly higher than both Miao et al. (2018) and Banks et al. (2016). For example, the k for work engagement increased from 11 to 37, and the k for job satisfaction increased from 16 to 34. In this way, we provide stronger evidence for the importance of authentic leadership.
Overall, our study contributes to the literature in two main ways. First, through the use of MASEM we examine the mechanisms through which authentic leadership influences key outcomes. Second, we explore the influence of cultural differences such as power distance and individualism on the links between authentic leadership and its outcomes. In doing so we address the calls for more research which considers the role of national culture on the influence of different leadership styles (Yukl, 2010). Since the empirical studies in our sample are from different cultures, meta-analysis enables us to investigate whether specific features of primary samples (e.g., cultural background) account for systematic variations in effect sizes (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004).
Theories and Hypotheses
Antecedents: ethical climate and leaders’ emotional intelligence
Organizational climate refers to employees’ shared perceptions of organizational practices and procedures that help individuals determine what to do when making decisions related to the organization or its members (Victor & Cullen, 1988). Previous research suggests that the leadership styles adopted by leaders are shaped by the organizational settings in which they are situated (Gardner, 1993). Organizational climate has been proposed as a factor that shapes the development of authentic leadership (Gardner et al., 2005b).
In line with this logic, we argue that ethical climate is particularly relevant for the development of authentic leadership. Ethical climate refers to “a type of work climate that is best understood as a group of prescriptive climates reflecting the procedures, policies, and practices with moral consequences” (Martin & Cullen, 2006: 177). Research has suggested that ethical climate will act as a key predictor of authentic leadership through fostering a cooperative environment between leaders and subordinates, where there are high levels of transparency and high moral standards (Gardner et al., 2005). This environment makes it easier and safer for the leader to follow his/her own internal moral standards, process information in balanced way and act honestly with followers, all of which are characteristics of authentic leadership. Therefore, we hypothesize that:
-
H1a: Ethical climate is positively related to authentic leadership.
Emotional intelligence (EI) is defined as an individual’s capability to deal with their own or others’ emotions, and includes four dimensions: (a) appraisal and expression of emotion in oneself; (b) appraisal and recognition of emotion in others; (c) regulation of emotion in oneself; and (d) use of emotion to facilitate performance (Davies et al., 1998; Wong & Law, 2002). Previous studies have found that individuals with higher EI are good at understanding their own emotions, assessing others’ feelings, and supporting others to remain positive (George, 2000). In this way, high EI can foster self-awareness and facilitate relational transparency with others. Therefore, we suggest that leaders’ EI is positively related to authentic leadership. In particular, leaders’ EI should contribute to the development of their self-awareness by directing their conscious attention to aspects of the self, which is a core component of authentic leadership (Gardner et al., 2011). Meanwhile, EI helps leaders to consider others’ feelings, instead of being ruled by emotion at a particular moment (Gardner et al., 2005a). As such, they can build transparent relationships with their subordinates. Therefore, we posit that:
-
H1b: Leaders’ emotional intelligence (EI) is positively related to authentic leadership.
Outcomes of authentic leadership
Following the categorization of Eva et al. (2019), we classify the outcomes of authentic leadership into four groups: follower attitudinal outcomes, follower behavioral outcomes, leader-related outcomes, and performance outcomes.
Follower attitudinal outcomes
Drawing on social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), we propose authentic leadership to be positively related to employee psychological attachment to the organization. First, as authentic leaders who have high self-awareness know their strengths and weaknesses, they are more likely to recognize their subordinates’ values and significance in the workplace. Therefore, authentic leaders tend to develop high-quality exchange relationships with their followers. Second, the internalized moral perspective of authentic leaders will make subordinates feel they are being treated fairly in the workplace, which will also contribute to high-quality exchange relationships. Third, authentic leaders who process information in a balanced way tend to involve their subordinates in decision-making. This will lead subordinates to feel that they are trusted by their leaders, and reciprocate in the form of positive work attitudes, as predicted by social exchange theory (Blau, 1964). Because prior empirical research has typically operationalized social exchange in the form of organizational commitment (e.g., Bishop & Scott, 2000; Randall et al., 1999), we include commitment as an important outcome variable of authentic leadership. In addition, we include turnover intention as an indicator of attachment, because meta-analyses have found that voluntary turnover captures psychological detachment from the organization (Griffeth et al., 2000; Tett & Meyer, 1993). Therefore, we propose that:
-
H2a: Authentic leadership is positively related to subordinates’ organizational commitment.
-
H2b: Authentic leadership is negatively related to subordinates’ turnover intention.
We also argue that authentic leadership is likely to enhance subordinates’ positive psychological resources such as psychological empowerment, work engagement, psychological capital, psychological safety, job autonomy, and thriving. First, authentic leaders have high self-awareness, which means they know their own advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, they are less likely to make every relevant decision solely by themselves. Instead, authentic leaders tend to empower their subordinates to make a difference. They motivate their subordinates by facilitating two-way interaction, provide subordinates with autonomy, constructive feedback and mentoring, acknowledge subordinates’ perspectives, and involve them in decision-making (Wong & Laschinger, 2013). This involvement provides followers with learning opportunities that may enhance thriving. Second, authentic leaders tend to process different information equally, including information from those that challenge their opinion (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Therefore, they tend to seriously consider or even actively seek their subordinates’ opinion. Third, authentic leaders are likely to develop transparent relationships with subordinates (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Finally, authentic leaders demonstrate consistency between their communications and actions, and thus earn more trust from their subordinates (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). These factors should ultimately build positive emotional states amongst followers and high levels of engagement with others at work (Avolio et al., 2004). For example, it has been found that authentic leaders tend to mobilize their subordinates by enabling them to accomplish their work in meaningful ways (i.e., structural empowerment) (Wong & Laschinger, 2013).
Another important indicator of psychological resources is psychological safety. It refers to employees’ perceptions that it is safe for them to take interpersonal risks in the workplace. Those who experience psychological safety do not only perceive high levels of interpersonal trust, but also a work climate in which people feel safe to express their differences (Edmondson, 1999). For example, research has established that leaders play important roles in removing the constraints that often discourage subordinates from expressing their authentic ideas (Schaubroeck et al., 2011; Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). Authentic leaders also demonstrate consistency between their words and deeds (Avolio & Gardner, 2005), building and integrity with their subordinates by encouraging open communication and sharing critical information (Avolio et al., 2004). As a result, subordinates are more likely to feel safe to express their opinion with authentic leaders. Finally, since authentic leaders act in accordance with their fundamental moral standards and beliefs rather than external pressures or personal interests (Gardner et al., 2005), their subordinates tend to believe they will not be unfairly punished, even when interpersonal risk-taking leads to unfavourable outcomes. Thus, we hypothesize that:
-
H3: Authentic leadership is positively related to subordinates' (a) psychological empowerment, (b) work engagement, (c) psychological capital, (d) psychological safety, (e) job autonomy, and (f) thriving.
In addition, authentic leadership is likely to have positive effects on subordinates’ satisfaction with, and trust in, their work and leaders, because authentic leaders provide developmental rather than controlling feedback, and support followers’ self-determination (Ilies et al., 2005). In support of such an assertion, Deci et al. (1989) found that leaders’ support for self-determination is positively related to subordinates’ general satisfaction at work. In particular, authentic leaders facilitate subordinates’ job satisfaction by enhancing subordinates’ self-determination in ways such as providing them with autonomy and non-controlling positive feedback, and acknowledging their opinions (Wong & Laschinger, 2013). Furthermore, Gardner et al. (2011) suggests through exhibiting transparency in relationships and consistency between their values, words, and deeds, authentic leaders enhance subordinates’ trust in the leader. Therefore, we predict that:
-
H4: Authentic leadership is positively related to (a) job satisfaction, (b) leader satisfaction and (c) workplace trust.
Authentic leadership is also likely to reduce followers’ negative work attitudes such as cynicism, stress, and emotional exhaustion (Houkes et al., 2003; Laschinger et al., 2013). First, scholars have argued that authentic leaders tend to “draw from the positive psychological states…such as confidence, optimism, hope and resilience, to model and promote the development of these states in others” (Gardner et al., 2005). Second, according to the conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989), social and instrumental support, which function as resources for subordinates, will reduce the likelihood of emotion exhaustion for employees (Houkes et al., 2003). Finally, as authentic leaders express their true opinion, their followers are less likely to have cynical opinion toward the leader and the organization. Empirical work generally supports such assertions. For example, authentic leadership has been found to decrease both emotional exhaustion and stress of subordinates over time (Laschinger et al., 2013; van den Bosch et al., 2014). The reason is that supportive leadership such as authentic leadership will protect employees against exhaustion and stress by building healthy work environments (Laschinger & Fida, 2014). Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:
-
H5: Authentic leadership is negatively related to (a) stress, (b) emotional exhaustion and (c) cynicism.
Follower behavioral outcomes
In addition to followers’ attitudinal outcomes, researchers have also examined the effects of authentic leadership on two key work behaviors: organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) and counterproductive work behaviors (CWB). These two sets of behaviors have been considered as opposite to each other. While the former benefits the organization, the latter harms it (Dalal, 2005).
First, we argue that authentic leadership is likely to increase subordinates OCB. OCB is defined as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988, p. 4). The positive effects of leadership on citizenship behaviors have been supported by numerous studies (Organ, Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 2006; Shapira-Lishchinsky & Tsemach, 2014). According to social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), leaders influence subordinates’ behavior through role modelling appropriate behaviors. In other words, subordinates vicariously learn through observing their leaders’ behavior and its consequences (Wood & Bandura, 1989). Authentic leadership is likely to foster citizenship behaviors from subordinates because of the leaders’ high moral standards, integrity, and honesty. Their positive reputation cultivates positive expectations from subordinates, and thereby enhance subordinates’ willingness to engage in cooperative behavior in the interests of the organization (Avolio et al., 2004). In addition, a few studies also propose that authentic leadership is positively associated with employee creativity. They argued that authentic leaders may facilitate employee creativity by improving employee thriving (Xu et al., 2017) or work passion (Qin et al., 2016a). Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Second, we argue that authentic leadership is also likely to reduce negative behaviors such as CWB. CWB refers behavior that is “intended to have a detrimental effect on organizations and their members” (Fox et al., 2001). Authentic leaders are likely to reduce CWB because they tend to create a positive work environment and relationship with followers (Avolio et al., 2004). In this study, we test the influence of authentic leadership on general CWB encompassing both active acts, such as aggression, theft and bullying, and passive acts such as tardiness and lateness. This leads us to:
-
H6a: Authentic leadership is positively related to subordinates’ OCB.
-
H6b: Authentic leadership is negatively related to subordinates’ CWB.
Leader-related outcomes
In addition to its influence on subordinates, we also propose that authentic leadership enhances the ability of leaders to perform their duties (leader effectiveness) and the quality of their exchange relationship with subordinates (LMX). Leadership effectiveness refers to a leader’s ability to lead a group in aspects such as facilitating discussions, organising meetings, or speaking on behalf of a group (Ewen et al., 2013). It is usually operationalised as others’ (particularly subordinates’) perceptions of their performance along these aspects (e.g., Davis & Gardner, 2012). Balanced processing and authentic behaviours, as components of authentic leadership, will particularly influence subordinates’ perceptions of leader effectiveness, as when leaders demonstrate balanced processing of information, they are more likely to develop high quality relationships with subordinates featured by high levels of mutual trust and respect (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Furthermore, authentic leaders tend to be perceived as credible role models by demonstrating authentic behaviors (Gardner et al., 2005), which cultivates greater cooperation from subordinates. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
-
H7a: Authentic leadership is positively related to leader effectiveness.
Moreover, authentic leadership can facilitate LMX in several ways (Wang et al., 2014). First, by striving to achieve truthfulness and openness in their relationships with subordinates (Ilies et al., 2005), authentic leaders are likely to lead subordinates’ positive feedback in the form of higher levels of loyalty and trust (Wang et al., 2014). Second, by demonstrating high levels of moral integrity (Michie & Gooty, 2005) authentic leaders will foster subordinates’ willingness to communicate and cooperate with their leaders (Rousseau et al., 1998). Third, by sharing information transparently, authentic leaders cultivate intimacy with their subordinates (Wang et al., 2014). In short, authentic leaders tend to establish positive LMX relationships with their subordinates. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
-
H7b: Authentic leadership is positively related to LMX.
Performance outcomes
Research on authentic leadership has paid much attention to employee job performance and creativity. Researchers have specified two mechanisms through which authentic leadership positively influences subordinate’s job performance. First, authentic leadership improves job performance by facilitating high quality relationships between leaders and their subordinates (Wang et al., 2014). Specifically, authentic leaders tend to develop high-quality relationships based on the principles of social exchange rather than economic exchange through empowerment to the subordinates (Ilies et al., 2005). According to social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), subordinates who perceive greater obligation to their leaders are likely to reciprocate the positive treatment from their leaders in the form of increased effort, which is likely to translate into higher levels of performance (Wang et al., 2014).
Second, authentic leaders also increase subordinates’ performance by satisfying their basic psychological needs. Specifically, authentic leaders objectively analyse all relevant information, including information that challenges their opinions (Walumbwa et al., 2008). By doing so, authentic leaders satisfy their subordinates autonomy by acknowledging their subordinates’ opinions, and providing meaningful and supportive feedback (Deci et al., 2001; Leroy et al., 2012a). In addition, a few studies also propose that authentic leadership is positively associated with employee creativity. They argued that authentic leaders may facilitate employee creativity by improving employee thriving (Xu et al., 2017 or work passion (Qin et al., 2016a). Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:
-
H8: Authentic leadership is positively related to subordinates' (a) job performance and (b) creativity.
Authentic leadership can also influence team performance (Hannah et al., 2011 Rego et al., 2013). Specifically, authentic leadership is likely to foster positive team contexts by practicing and supporting “good” habits, desires and actions (Rego et al., 2013), which further improves team performance. For example, recent work found that authentic leadership improves team productivity through enhancing team authenticity (Hannah et al., 2011). These findings are consistent with social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), which asserts that subordinates will identify and mimic behaviours when leaders demonstrate them consistently. As such when authentic behaviours become prototypical (demonstrated consistently by the leader), team members will model such behaviors themselves in order to be liked by other team members. This in turn will lead to higher quality work behaviors such as higher team performance (Hannah et al., 2011). Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
-
H9: Authentic leadership is positively related to team performance.
The moderating effects of national cultural difference
National culture refers to the “collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another” (Hofstede, 1980, p. 25). Although social scientists have proposed numerous cultural taxonomies (Clark, 1990), the most influential framework proposed by Hofstede suggests that there are five dimensions of cultural differences at the national level: power distance, individualism and collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity versus femininity, and long versus short-term orientation (Hofstede, 1980, 2001). Among these dimensions, leadership scholars have paid the most attention to power distance and individualism/collectivism (e.g., Jackson et al., 2013; Rabl et al., 2014). Therefore, our study examines the moderating effect of these two cultural moderators.
The influence of leadership is not universal. Some leadership behaviours are unique to a given culture (Berry, 1980), and not all leadership behaviors are equally effective across cultures (Dorfman et al., 1997). For instance, Dorfman et al. (1997) tested the effects of six leadership behaviours in five countries. They found that directive, participative, and contingent punishment among the six leadership behaviours will only lead to favourable outcomes in some cultures. Therefore, we propose that power distance and individualism are likely to moderate the influence of authentic leadership on outcomes.
More specifically, we propose that in a culture characterised by high levels of power distance, the influence of authentic leadership on outcomes will be stronger. Power distance is defined as the degree to which individuals accept and believe that power should be distributed unequally (Hofstede, 1980). As highlighted earlier authentic leaders tend to share critical information (Avolio et al., 2004) and empower their subordinates to make a difference. In high power distance culture, the unequal distribution of information and authority is institutionalized (Hofstede, 1980). As such, authentic leader behaviors will be particularly valued by subordinates because of the scarcity of these behaviors. Therefore, employees tend to demonstrate more positive attitudes and behaviors such as organizational attachment, work motivation, performance, and subjective well-being, and fewer negative intention behaviors such as turnover and CWB when working with authentic leaders.
Similarly, we propose that the relationship between authentic leadership and its outcomes will be stronger in a culture with high individualism. Individualism is defined as “a loosely knit social framework in which people are supposed to take care of themselves and of their immediate families only” (Hofstede, 1980: 45). In contrast, collectivism refers to “a tight social framework in which people distinguish between ingroups and outgroups, they expect their ingroup to look after them, and in exchange for that they feel they owe absolute loyalty to it” (Hofstede, 1980: 45). The behaviors adopted by authentic leaders such as communicating their values and goals, and emphasizing their subordinates’ personal development and needs (Gardner et al., 2005), are consistent with the values placed by people in individualistic cultures on their personal interests. In other words, the personal needs which are particularly salient in individualistic cultures are satisfied by authentic leaders. Therefore, in such cultures, subordinates are more likely to demonstrate more positive and less negative outcomes. In comparison, in collectivistic cultures, subordinates are less likely to be influenced by authentic leadership due to the focus they place on the group over their own individual needs. Therefore, we suggest that:
-
H10a: Power distance will accentuate the relationship between authentic leadership and its outcomes. Specifically, the relationship will be stronger when power distance is high.
-
H10b: Individualism will accentuate the relationship between authentic leadership and its outcomes. Specifically, the relationship will be stronger when individualism is high.
The mediating role of LMX and job satisfaction
While investigating the bivariate relationships between authentic leadership and both follower and leader outcomes helps us to understand what outcomes authentic leadership is related to, it does not enrich our understanding of how its influences unfold. Therefore, we investigate how authentic leadership relates to relevant outcomes using meta-analytic structural equation modelling (MASEM) (Cheung & Chan, 2005). MASEM can test a model with multiple independent, mediating and dependent variables, using the correlation matrix provided by meta-analysis of bivariate relationships.
Based on our literature review of authentic leadership, we explore the mediating role of LMX and job satisfaction. Researchers have adopted social exchange theory to explain the influence of authentic leadership (e.g., Wang et al., 2014). In this study, we use LMX, the most established proxy for the strength of the leader-follower relationship, as a mediator. Leadership researchers have found that social exchange, rather than economi exchange plays a positive mediating role between leadership and follower performance Kuvaas et al. (2012).
We also include job satisfaction as an parallel mediator for its theoretical and empirical importance in authentic leadership research. First, the extent research in social psychology has provided strong support for attitude–behavior link (e.g., Glasman & Albarracín, 2006). In management research, job satisfaction is the most studied attitudinal construct. For example, Judge et al. (2017) ran a content analysis of articles from PsycINFO and found that job satisfaction is most studied attitudinal variable since 1930. Secondly, job satisfaction is one of the most studied attitudinal variable in authentic leadership. As can be seen in Table 1A and B, among the five groups of outcomes, follower attitudes have received most research attention. The total k of bivarite relationships in this category is 263, which is much higher than other groups (54 for follower behavioral outcomes, 36 for leader-related outcomes, and 74 for performance outcomes). The k of job satisfaction is second highest (i.e., 34) in the attitudinal group. For outcome variables, we focus on OCB and job performance, because they are considered to the most widely researched employee behaviors in management research.
Thus, we propose the following hypotheses:
-
H11a: LMX mediates the relationship between authentic leadership and (a) OCB and (b) job performance.
-
H11b: Job satisfaction mediates the relationship between authentic leadership and (a) OCB and (b) job performance.
Method
Literature Search and Inclusion Criteria
We searched for literature on authentic leadership in five databases, including Scopus, Web of Science (SSCI), EBSCO, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) and ProQuest. Following the practice of previous meta-analyses (e.g. Zhang & Bednall, 2016), we searched the title, keywords and abstract of articles for the term authentic leadership or leader authenticity. Specially, we obtained 772 articles in Scopus, 881 articles in Web of Science (SSCI), 50 articles in EBSCO and 117 articles in CNKI respectively. In addition, we also manually checked the reference list of other review papers so that we did not overlook any relevant study (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2013; Banks et al., 2016; Gardner et al., 2011).
Regarding the unpublished studies, we searched for conference papers, research reports, dissertations, book chapters, working papers or conference papers regarding authentic leadership in the database of ProQuest, SCOPUS and Web of Science (SSCI) to avoid the meta-analysis being contaminated by publication bias (Rothstein & Hopewell, 2009). Besides, we examined conference proceedings of the Academy of Management (AOM) and the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) to identify relevant papers. Moreover, we posted requests for working papers on authentic leadership on the listservs of the Human Resources and Organizational Behavior Divisions at the Academy of Management Conference (Fig. 1).
After these thorough searches, we selected studies based on the following criteria. First, the study had to measure authentic leadership empirically. Second, there needed to be at least one bivariate relationship of interest in the study. Third, there needed to be correlation statistics in the study. This procedure helped us identify 214 primary studies (N=196,300) for inclusion in the final meta-analysis, encompassing 161 journal articles and 53 unpublished papers.
Coding of Effect Sizes
We coded the observed correlations, sample sizes, coefficient alpha reliability estimates, the country of original samples and some bibliometric information of the primary articles. In addition, we transformed the observed correlations into the corrected correlation (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). Two authors of this study coded all papers independently and double-checked when disagreements occurred, and a high agreement was achieved (Cohen’s kappa = .92). When disagreements occurred both authors looked together at the data and came to a consensus. In addition, after coding all the information our meta-analysis focused on, we classified the variables with similar meanings into the same category of outcomes and antecedents of authentic leadership.
Analysis
We applied a random-effects model by using the psychometric meta-analysis approach of Hunter and Schmidt (2004) to test Hypothesis 1 to Hypothesis 9. The psychometric meta-analysis method of Hunter and Schmidt involves correction of artifactual variance, like measurement error, which causes the attenuation of observed effect sizes (Hunter et al., 2006). Thus, this method provides an estimation of the population correlation that is not biased by measurement error. Besides, unlike the fixed-effects model, the random-effects model can widen confidence intervals for testing effects, thus it is considered more conservative (Banks et al., 2014). In our research, we corrected for measurement error in authentic leadership and its outcomes. Eight important indexes were reported, including independent effect sizes (k); sample size (N); the weighted mean correlation (r); mean true-score correlation (\( \overline{\uprho} \) ); observed standard deviation of corrected correlations (\( S{D}_{r_c} \)); residual standard deviation of ρ (SDρ ); the 95% confidence interval for the main effect; and the variability of corrected effect size estimates by calculating 80% credibility intervals.
Besides, we ran meta-regression to test the moderating effects of two national cultural dimensions (Hypotheses 10) on the outcomes of authentic leadership in line with the recommendations provided by Borenstein et al. (2011). Specifically, we selected two variables to measure the characteristics of a country: power distance and individualism, using data from the World Values Survey conducted by Geert Hofstede (http://geert-hofstede.com/china.html). This method increases the accuracy of measuring cultural dimensions compared to the conventional approach of cross-cultural meta-analysis which operationalizes cultural orientation by using location as a proxy (Zhang & Liao, 2015). After selecting these two variables to measure the cultural orientation of countries, the next step is to code the countries of sampled organization in primary studies. If the coded countries were in the list of the survey, we assigned corresponding values of power distance and individualism to the samples. Finally, we adopted meta-regression to test the moderating effects of the two cultural dimensions in line with the recommendations provided by Borenstein et al. (2011).
In addition, because of the common method variance due to single source of data (Podsakoff et al., 2012), it is necessary to examine whether results differ among research with different data collection methods. In line with previous meta-analysis (e.g., Eatough et al., 2011; Martin et al., 2016; Paustian-Underdahl et al., 2014; Pletzer et al., 2019), we tested for the moderating effect of two methodological choices related to research design, including the time lag and rating source, using subgroup analysis of Hunter and Schmidt (2004). Specially, in the first subgroup analysis, we coded the samples based on cross-sectional design as 1, whereas we coded the sample based on time lag design as 0. In the second subgroup analysis, when data was collected from a single source it was coded as 1, whereas when the data was collected from different sources it was coded as 0. Then these two features of research design were used to categorize samples. In addition, we conducted a separate meta-analysis for each group. Finally, on the basis of the parameters from the above separate meta-analyses, we calculated z scores to examine the significance level of group difference (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990), the Z values over 1.96 indicates significant difference between groups. Finally, we drew on MASEM using Viswesvaran and Ones’s (1995) method in order to examine the mediating effects of LMX and job satisfaction on the relationship between authentic leadership and both job performance and OCB. In the first step, we coded the correlation matrix for each bivariate relationship in the SEM, see Table 1A and B. In the second step, as an observed variance-covariance matrix, the correlation matrix that was coded in last step is then entered into SEM.
Results
Main effects
The results of the meta-analyses for the antecedents and outcomes of authentic leadership are shown in Table 1A and B. Overall, there were significant correlations for all meta-analytic effects. Cohen’s (1988) propose that correlation of .1, .3, .5 are considered as small, moderate, and large effect sizes respectively. Most effects in the results were in the moderate to large range.
First, the relationships between authentic leadership and its antecedents were examined. As shown in Table 1A, ethical climate (\( \overline{\uprho} \)= .47) and leader EI (\( \overline{\uprho} \) = .57) are significantly related to authentic leadership. Both 95% confidence intervals did not include zero. Therefore, Hypothesis 1a and 1b are supported.
The outcomes of AL are also presented in Table 1A and B. In Hypothesis 2 to 5, the relationships between authentic leadership and subordinates' attitudinal outcomes were examined. As can be seen in Table 1A, our findings show that authentic leadership was positively associated with all positive attitudinal outcomes, including organizational commitment (\( \overline{\uprho} \)= .48), psychological empowerment (\( \overline{\uprho} \) = .58), psychological safety (\( \overline{\uprho} \)= .37), work engagement (\( \overline{\uprho} \)= .46), psychological capital (\( \overline{\uprho} \) = .48) job autonomy (\( \overline{\uprho} \)= .43), thriving (\( \overline{\uprho} \) = .42), job satisfaction (\( \overline{\uprho} \)= .54), leader satisfaction (\( \overline{\uprho} \)= .74) and workplace trust (\( \overline{\uprho} \)= .67). Besides, negative relationships were found between authentic leadership and subordinates' negative attitudinal variables, including turnover intention (\( \overline{\uprho} \)= -.20), emotional exhaustion (\( \overline{\uprho\ } \)= -.23), cynicism (\( \overline{\uprho} \)= -.28), and stress (\( \overline{\uprho} \)= -.21). All 95% confidence intervals excluded zero, which indicated all the relationships between authentic leadership and subordinates' attitudinal outcomes were significant. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 to 6 were all supported.
Hypothesis 6a and 6b proposed that authentic leadership is significantly related to work behaviors such as OCB and CWB. Table 1B revealed that authentic leadership was positively related to OCB (\( \overline{\uprho} \)= .46) and negatively related to CWB (\( \overline{\uprho} \)= -.26). Both of the 95% confidence intervals excluded zero. Consequently, Hypothesis 6a and 6b were supported.
In addition, to test Hypothesis 7a and 7b, the relationships between authentic leadership and leader-related outcomes were examined. Table 1B showed that authentic leadership was positively related to both leader effectiveness (\( \overline{\uprho} \)= .69) and LMX (\( \overline{\uprho} \)= .55). Both the 95% confidence intervals excluded. Thus, both Hypothesis 7a and 7b were also supported.
Hypothesis 8a and 8b proposed that there were positive associations between authentic leadership and some performance outcomes. Our findings confirm that authentic leadership was positively related to subordinates' job performance (\( \overline{\uprho} \)= .33) and creativity (\( \overline{\uprho} \)= .45). In addition, the positive relationship between authentic leadership and team performance (\( \overline{\uprho} \)= .59) was also confirmed. Therefore, Hypothesis 8 and 9 were fully supported.
In addition, we test the relationship between authentic leadership and whole category of outcomes in our analysis. As shown in Table 1A and B, authentic leadership is positively related to positive attitudinal (\( \overline{\uprho} \)= .52, 95% CI [.49, .55]), leader-related (\( \overline{\uprho} \)= .60, 95% CI [.51 .69]) and performance outcomes (\( \overline{\uprho} \)= .43, 95% CI [.38, .48]), and is negatively related to negative attitudinal outcomes (\( \overline{\uprho} \)= -.22, 95% CI [-.29, -.15]).
Moderating Effects
In Hypothesis 10, we argued that national cultural differences, including levels of individualism and power distance, influenced the strength of the relationships between authentic leadership and its outcomes. In order to test Hypothesis 10a and 10b, we used meta-regression to examine the moderating effects. Hypothesis 10a stated that the association between authentic leadership and its outcomes would be stronger in countries with high versus low power distance. As shown in Table 2, six bivariate relationships were stronger in countries with high power distance including leader satisfaction (b = .69, p < .01), workplace trust (b = .30, p < .01), turnover intentions (b = .86, p < .01), leader effectiveness (b = 1.19, p < .01), job performance (b = .64, p < .01) and team performance (b = .80, p < .01). In contrast, seven bivariate relationships were weaker in countries with high power distance, including organizational commitment (b = -.67, p < .01), psychological safety (b = -.75, p < .01), job satisfaction (b = -.45, p < .01), emotional exhaustion (b = -1.02, p < .01), cynicism (b = -1.01, p < .01), OCB (b = -.18, p < .01) and CWB (b = -.47, p < .01).
For Hypothesis 10b, in countries with high individualism, the relationship between authentic leadership and outcomes including organizational commitment (b = .30, p < .01), psychological capital (b = .24, p < .01), job satisfaction (b = .32, p < .01), stress (b = .60, p < .01), cynicism (b =.59, p < .01), OCB (b =.16, p < .01) and CWB (b =.24, p < .01). However, most of the other relationships were weaker in countries with high individualism, including the relationships between authentic leadership and outcomes including psychological empowerment (b = - .21, p < .1), work engagement (b = - .10, p < .01), psychological safety (b = - .25, p < .01), leader satisfaction (b = -.27, p < .01), intention to turnover (b = - .75, p < .01), leader effectiveness (b = -.67, p < .01), LMX (b = - .29, p < .01), job performance (b = - .26, p < .01), employee creativity (b =-.43, p < .01) and team performance (b =-.35, p < .01) are stronger.. For the remaining outcomes, the moderating effects were not significant. Thus, both Hypothesis 10a and 10b were partially supported.
MASEM Analysis of Mediating Effects
We applied MASEM to test the mediating effects of LMX and job satisfaction on the relationships between authentic leadership and both job performance and OCB. The results show that authentic leadership was positively related to LMX (β =.50, p<.01), and LMX was positively related to both OCB (β =.30, p<.01) and job performance (β =.29, p<.01). In addition, authentic leadership was significantly and positively related to job satisfaction (β=.47, p<.01), and job satisfaction was significantly and positively related to OCB (β=.04, p<.01) and job performance (β =.03, p<.01). Regarding mediation analysis, the results in Table 3 showed that the mediating effects of LMX on the relationship between authentic leadership and OCB was significant (β=.15, p<.01). Additionally, the mediating role of job satisfaction on the relationship between authentic leadership and OCB was significant, the indirect effects (β=.02, p<.01). For job performance, the indirect effect of authentic leadership via both LMX (β=.14, p<.01) and job satisfaction (β=.01, p<.01) were significant. Thus, Hypotheses 11a and 11b was supported.
Supplementary Analyses
In addition to the analysis of antecedents, outcomes, and cultural moderators of authentic leadership based on relevant theories, we also did exploratory analysis of the influence of followers’ demographic variables (i.e., age, gender and education level) and research design. First, as shown in Table 4, employees’ age (\( \overline{\uprho} \) =-.04; 95% CI [-.07, -.01]) and gender (\( \overline{\uprho} \) =.02; 95% CI [-.01, .04]) were slightly but significantly correlated with followers’ perceptions of authentic leadership. However, the relation between education level (\( \overline{\uprho} \) =.04; 95% CI [.01, .07]) and followers’ perceptions of authentic leadership is not significant.
In addition, we examined whether the influence of authentic leadership is contingent on the research design (i.e., rating sources and rating time consistency). It should be noted that some moderation effects were not tested because there was no more than one study in each group. Also, studies for some variables have very limited variation on some moderators. For instance, among the nine articles on leader EI and authentic leadership, only one used multiple-source design. Therefore, these bivariate relationships were not reported in subgroup analysis.
The moderating effects of rating sources are shown in Table 5A and B. Apart from autonomy (Z = 2.20), employee creativity (Z = 3.05), OCB (Z = 3.20), thriving (Z = 3.94), workplace trust (Z = 2.27) and team performance (Z = 3.37), other relationships did not seem to vary much between samples that used different rating sources and the same rating source. Thriving showed a significantly stronger correlation using data from the same source (ρ = .47) than using data from different sources (\( \overline{\uprho} \) = .32). The same held for autonomy ((\( \overline{\uprho} \) = .46 vs \( \overline{\uprho} \) = .38), workplace trust (\( \overline{\uprho} \) = .71 vs \( \overline{\uprho} \) = .52), OCB (\( \overline{\uprho} \) = .51 vs \( \overline{\uprho} \) = .36), employee creativity (\( \overline{\uprho} \) = .53 vs \( \overline{\uprho} \) = .34) and team performance (\( \overline{\uprho} \) = .66 vs \( \overline{\uprho} \) = .37).
The moderating effects of cross-sectional versus time-lagged designs (rating time consistency) are presented in Table 6A and B. The rating time consistency did not moderate relationships between authentic leadership and its attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Regarding the relationships between authentic leadership and leader-related outcomes, apart from leader effectiveness (Z =5.23) and LMX (Z =2.27), the rating time consistency did not moderate relationships between authentic leadership and other outcomes. Specially, both leader effectiveness (\( \overline{\uprho} \) = .75 vs. \( \overline{\uprho} \) = .24) and LMX (\( \overline{\uprho} \) = .60 vs. \( \overline{\uprho} \) = .38) showed a significantly stronger correlation with samples obtained using cross sectional designs than time lagged designs. Besides, the subgroup analysis revealed that the rating time consistency moderates the relationships between authentic leadership and several performance outcomes, including employee creativity (Z =3.42) and team performance (Z =2.04), both of which show a significantly stronger correlation for cross-sectional research designs as opposed to time lagged designs.
Discussion
Since the model of authentic leadership development was proposed by Luthans and Avolio (2003), academic research on authentic leadership has proliferated rapidly. In order to examine the nomological network between authentic leadership and its antecedents/outcomes, we conducted a meta-analytic review of prior empirical work. Our findings largely support our hypotheses. As we expected, leaders’ emotional intelligence and organizational ethical climate predicted authentic leadership and authentic leadership was significantly related to various subordinates’ attitudinal, behavioral, leader-related, and performance outcomes. In addition, authentic leadership increase OCB and job performance through LXM and job satisfaction. Finally, the effects of authentic leadership on subordinate-related outcomes were also contingent upon two dimensions of national culture; namely power distance and individualism. Nevertheless, the findings on the moderating effects of cultural dimensions went partially against our expectations, as explained below. Finally, we found that the research design had a significant influence on empirical findings.
Theoretical implications
Our study contributes to the literature in the following ways. First, the present meta-analysis focused on two key antecedents of authentic leadership; organizational ethical climate and leaders’ emotional intelligence. Our results confirmed that they were both highly correlated to authentic leadership in line with the assertions of Luthans and Avolio (2003), who argued that the organizational context and leaders’ personal psychological capabilities will lead them to act in an authentic manner. Our results imply that researchers should place greater attention on the organizational ethical climate and leaders’ EI when exploring the emergence of authentic leadership.
Second, our findings reveal strong relationships between authentic leadership and various desirable outcomes such as work attitudes, behavior and performance. Although scholarship on authentic leadership has recently been challenged by scholars “warning” against excessive positivity (Alvesson & Einola, 2019), our quantitative review of prior empirical work does not support this argument. The overall positive effects of authentic leadership identified suggests that being an authentic leader does more good than harm. In doing so, this study is superior to previous meta-analysis (e.g., Banks et al., 2016) in that it looks at more bivariate relationships and includes larger sample sizes. For example, we included an additional outcome of psychological safety and found that it is positively related to authentic leadership. Building on recent meta-analytical work which revealed that psychological safety is positively related to inclusive and transformational leadership style (Frazier et al., 2017), our results also demonstrate its connection with authentic leadership. In addition, we found a positive relationship between authentic leadership and work engagement, while Banks et al. (2016) revealed no significant relationship. This finding implies that the relationship between authentic leadership and engagement may be more complex, and dependent on other conditions, which could be explored by future research.
Third, the present study contributes to the literature by examining the boundary conditions between authentic leadership and its outcomes. In doing so we address the calls of researchers to consider the role of culture in explaining the effects of leadership (Den Hartog et al., 1999; Dickson et al., 2003), which has largely been ignored in the authentic leadership literature. Our results suggest that for many outcomes, the influence of authentic leadership is stronger when individualism is high (e.g., affective commitment and turnover intention) or when power distance is high (e, g., affective commitment and LMX). However, it should be noted that some of the results are contrary to what was hypothesized. For example, our results show that when power distance is high, the effects of authentic leadership on psychological capital, turnover intention, CWB, and OCB was weaker. A possible explanation is that the relationships between authentic leadership and certain outcomes may be more complex than we expected. Our results indicate that more research is needed to investigate the effectiveness of authentic leadership across different cultural contexts.
Fourth, we found that LMX and job satisfaction mediated the relationship between authentic leadership and two desirable outcomes: OCB and job performance. The mediating effects of LMX and job satisfaction provides strong evidence for both the importance of relational and cognitive perspectives in explaining the influence of authentic leadership (Lord et al., 2017; Judge et al., 2017).
Finally, we ran supplementary analysis to explore the moderating effect of follower demographics and the research designs adopted by researchers. The slight but significant impact of employee age, education and gender suggest that it is necessary to control for these demographic variables in research on authentic leadership. The results also suggest that the influence of authentic leadership rarely differs between cross-sectional and time lagged designs. However, the use of different rating sources sometimes impacted on the strength of the relationship between authentic leadership and its outcomes. For example, when the team performance data was from the same source as the data on authentic leadership, the correlation coefficient was significantly higher. It suggests that when examining the relationship between authentic leadership and team or group performance, researchers should avoid using data from the same source.
Practical implications
Over the past decade, the public has repeatedly witnessed scandals within multinational companies, with recent examples including fuel test cheating by Volkswagen and Mitsubishi (Hotten, 2015; Mullen, 2016). Many business leaders have failed to fulfil their obligations to build trustworthy organizations that provide good products to customers and a fair return to investors in a sustainable way. As such, business leaders have been facing the challenge of declining confidence from the public.
By highlighting the positive effect of authentic leadership, our research shows the need for organizations to invest in leadership training programmes that foster authentic leaders. We found that authentic leadership is strongly correlated with follower commitment, work motivation and work satisfaction. More importantly, it increases positive work performance (i.e., job performance, OCB, creativity) and reduces negative performance (i.e., CWB). Therefore, the introduction of authentic leadership training in organizations would benefit both employees and employers.
In addition, the results reveal that the strength of the influence of authentic leadership depends on the national culture in which it is enacted. For example, in high power distance countries such as China, the effect of authentic leadership on affective commitment and leader satisfaction was stronger. This suggests that authentic leadership may be more useful in East Asia countries which are high in power distance. But again, the results should be interpreted cautiously and more primary studies are needed to validate this finding.
Limitations and future research
There are a number of limitations of this meta-analysis. First, the k number for some bivariate relationships is relatively low. Although research on authenticity can be dated back to the early 1900s, its application to the leadership field only began as a result of Luthans and Avolio (2003) seminal work. Since then, work on authentic leadership has grown rapidly. However, the number of studies on some bivariate relationships is limited. Given the relatively short history of this topic, more empirical work is needed to validate the relationships proposed in various models of authentic leadership (Gardner et al., 2005; Ilies et al., 2005). Second, because there are not enough primary studies that provide bivariate relationship between authentic leadership and cultural dimensions, we coded the moderator variables (i.e., individualism and power distance) according to the country in which the sample was obtained. The inaccuracy of this measure which was not collected directly from participants could therefore influence the validity of our results. Finally, we did not test all the proposed mechanisms that link authentic leadership to its outcomes. Future meta-analysis could contribute to the literature by doing so, but this would require enough empirical studies that provide correlation coefficients between authentic leadership and mediators, and its mediators and outcomes.
Conclusion
The topic of authentic leadership has drawn much research attention in the past decade. In this study, we tested the antecedents and outcomes of authentic leadership using meta-analytical techniques. The results established a link between leader’s emotional intelligence and the organizational ethical climate and authentic leadership, and confirmed a positive link between authentic leadership and many important outcomes. We also found that LMX and job satisfaction mediate the effects on authentic leadership on OCB and job performance. Finally, we investigated the moderating effects of cultural differences and research design on these bivariate relationships, and the mediating effects of two widely examined variables. Our meta-analysis provides important implications to both literature and practice. We hope our research spurs future research to advance the literature on authentic leadership.
Change history
14 June 2021
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-021-09777-7
References
The studies included in this meta-analysis are labled with an asterisk.
*Abid, T., Altaf, M., Yousaf, U., & Bagram, M. (2012). Entrepreneur as an authentic leader: A study of small and medium sized enterprises in Pakistan. Management Science Letters, 2(7), 2355–2360.
*Adil, A., Kamal, A., & Shujja, S. (2019). Perceived authentic leadership in relation to in-role and extra-role performance: a job demands and resources perspective, Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 29(1), 53–71
*Ahmed, F., Naqshbandi, M. M., Kaur, S., & Ng, B. K. (2018). Roles of leadership styles and relationship-based employee governance in open service innovation: Evidence from Malaysian service sector. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(3), 353–374.
*Alkaabi, O., & Wong, C. (2019). Relationships among authentic leadership, manager incivility and trust in the manager. Leadership in Health Services, 33(1), 27–42.
*Alok, K. (2014). Authentic leadership and psychological ownership: investigation of interrelations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 35(4), 266–285.
*Alok, K., & Israel, D. (2012). Authentic leadership & work engagement. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 47(3), 498-510.
Alvesson, M., & Einola, K. (2019). Warning for excessive positivity: Authentic leadership and other traps in leadership studies. The leadership quarterly, 30(4): 383–395.
Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2013). Essay: Authentic leadership critically reviewed. In D. Ladkin, & C. Spiller (Eds.). Authentic leadership: Clashes, convergences and coalescences: 39–54. Edward Elgar
*Anwar, A., Abid, G., & Waqas, A. (2020). Authentic leadership and creativity: Moderated meditation model of resilience and hope in the health sector. European Journal of Investigation in Health Psychology and Education, 10(1), 18––29.
*Arasli, H., Arici, H. E., & Arici, N. C. (2019). Workplace favouritism, psychological contract violation and turnover intention: Moderating roles of authentic leadership and job insecurity climate. German Journal of Human Resource Management-Zeitschrift Fur Personalforschung, 33(3), 197–222.
*Arici, H. E. (2018). Perceived supervisor support and turnover intention: moderating effect of authentic leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(7), 899–913.
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315–338.
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 15(6): 801–823.
*Azanza, G., Moriano, J., & Molero, F. (2013) Authentic leadership and organizational culture as drivers of employees’ job satisfaction. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 29(2), 45–50.
*Bamford, M., Wong, C. A., & Laschinger, H. (2013). The influence of authentic leadership and areas of worklife on work engagement of registered nurses. Journal of Nursing Management, 21(3), 529–540.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall.
*Bandura, C. T., & Kavussanu, M. (2018). Authentic leadership in sport: Its relationship with athletes’ enjoyment and commitment and the mediating role of autonomy and trust. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 13(6), 968–977.
Banks, G. C., Batchelor, J. H., Seers, A., O'Boyle, Jr., Ernest, H., Pollack, J. M., & Gower, K. (2014). What does team–member exchange bring to the party? A meta-analytic review of team and leader social exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(2), 273–295.
Banks, G. C., Mccauley, K. D., Gardner, W. L., & Guler, C. (2016). A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(4):634–652.
*Batchelor, J. H. (2011). Leading with emotional labor and affective leadership climate as antecedents to entrepreneurial effectiveness. Unpublished PhD, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.
Berry, J. (1980). Social and cultural change. Handbook of cross-cultural psychology. Social Psychology, 5:211–279.
*Bird, J. J., Wang, C., Watson, J., & Murray, L. (2012). Teacher and principal perceptions of authentic leadership: Implications for trust, engagement, and intention to return. Journal of School Leadership, 22(3), 425–461.
Bishop, J. W., & Scott, K. D. (2000). An examination of organizational and team commitment in a self-directed team environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3): 439–450.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Transaction Publishers.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. PT., & Rothstein, H. R. (2011). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
*Braun, S., & Peus, C. (2018). Crossover of work-life balance perceptions: Does authentic leadership matter? Journal of Business Ethics, 149(4), 875–893.
*Cerne, M., Dimovski, V., Maric, M., Penger, S., & Skerlavaj, M. (2014). Congruence of leader self-perceptions and follower perceptions of authentic leadership: Understanding what authentic leadership is and how it enhances employees’ job satisfaction. Australian Journal of Management, 39(3), 453-471.
*Cerne, M., Jaklic, M., & Skerlavaj, M. (2013). Authentic leadership, creativity, and innovation: A multilevel perspective. Leadership, 9(1), 63–85.
*Chang, W., Busser, J., & Liu, A. Y. (2020). Authentic leadership and career satisfaction: the meditating role of thriving and conditional effect of psychological contract fulfillment. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(6), 2117–2136.
*Chaudhary, R. (2020). Authentic leadership and meaningfulness at work Role of employees’ CSR perceptions and evaluations. Management Decision, ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print).
*Chaudhary, R., & Panda, C. (2018). Authentic leadership and creativity: The Intervening role of psychological meaningfulness, safety and work engagement. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 67(9), 2071–2088.
*Chen, C.-C. (2010). The mediating effect of employees’ experience of inclusion and the moderating effect of individual work values on the relationship of authentic leadership style and organizational commitment. Unpublished PhD, Alliant International University
*Chen, L. L. (2016). The relationship between authentic leadership and employees’ Job Autonomy: The Mediating Role of Work - Passion. Unpublished dissertation. Harbin Engineering University. (in Chinese)
*Chen, X. J. (2018). Authentic leadership and the primary and middle school teachers job satisfaction: The role of authentic followship and psychological empowerment. Unpublished dissertation. Hunan Normal University. (in Chinese).
Cheung, W. L., & Chan, W. (2005). Meta-analytic structural equation modeling: a two-stage approach, Psychological Methods, 10(1): 40–64.
*Chiaburu, D. S., Diaz, I., & Pitts, V. E. (2011). Social and economic exchanges with the organization: do leader behaviors matter? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32(5), 442–461.
*Chu, S. W. (2014). The research on authentic leadership and its influence on turnover intentions in financial industry: Mediating effects of psychological capital. Unpublished dissertation. Guangdong University of Finance & Economics. (in Chinese).
*Chughtai, A. (2018). Authentic leadership, career self-efficacy and career success: a cross-sectional study. Career Development International, 23(6-7), 595–607.
*Cianci, A. M., Hannah, S. T., Roberts, R. P., & Tsakumis, G.T. (2014). The effects of authentic leadership on followers’ ethical decision-making in the face of temptation: An experimental study. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), 581–594.
*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 & Organizational Studies, 15(3), 227–240.
Clark, T. (1990). International marketing and national character: A review and proposal for an integrative theory. Journal of Marketing, 54(4): 66–79.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Abingdon. In: United Kingdom: Routledge.
*Copeland, M. K. (2016). The impact of authentic, ethical, transformational leadership on leader effectiveness. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 13(3), 79–97.
*Cottrill, K. R. (2012). Antecedents and outcomes of inclusion: Exploring authentic leadership, organizational climate for ethics, organization-based self-esteem, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Unpublished PhD, Alliant International University, Alhambra, CA.
*Coxen, L., Van, V. L., & Stander, M. W. (2016). Authentic leadership and organizational citizenship behaviour in the public health care sector: The role of workplace trust. Sa Journal of Industrial Psychology, 42(1), 1–13.
*Cui, Z.L., & Tian, X. Z. (2015). The effect of authentic leadership on subordinate’s proactive behaviors. Academic Forum, 38(8), 31–36. (in Chinese)
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6): 1241–1255.
*Dar, F., Bukhari, I., & Hamid, M. (2017). Relationship Between Authentic Leadership, Work Engagement and Job Stress among Employees of Telecommunication Organizations. Peshawar Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences (PJPBS), 2(2), 235–247.
Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: In search of an elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(4), 989–1015.
Davis, K. M., & Gardner, W. L. (2012). Charisma under crisis revisited: Presidential leadership, perceived leader effectiveness, and contextual influences. The leadership quarterly, 23(5): 918–933.
Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4): 580–590.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former eastern bloc country: a cross-cultural study of self-determination. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(8): 930–942.
Den Hartog, D. N., House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., Abdalla, I. A., & Akande, B. E. (1999). Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: Are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed?. The leadership quarterly, 10(2): 219–256.
*Deng, Z. J., Wang, Y., & Jiang, D. (2012). The relationship between sincere leaders and employees’ Organizational Citizen Behavior. Journal of Huaiyin Institute of Technology, 21(1), 68–72. (in Chinese)
Dickson, M. W., Den Hartog, D. N., & Mitchelson, J. K. (2003). Research on leadership in a cross-cultural context: Making progress, and raising new questions. Leadership Quarterly, 14(6): 729–768.
*Ding, J. (2019). Influence of gender stereotypes on the authentic leadership evaluation: The moderating effect of leadership distance. Unpublished dissertation. ZheJiang university. (in Chinese)
Dorfman, P. W., Howell, J. P., Hibino, S., Lee, J. K., Tate, U., & Bautista, A. (1997). Leadership in western and asian countries: Commonalities and differences in effective leadership processes across cultures. The leadership quarterly, 8(3): 233–274.
*Du, J. (2019). Authentic leadership, psychological capital and facades of conformity: evidence from banks in China. Unpublished dissertation. Southwestern University of Finance and Economics. (in Chinese)
*Du Plessis, M., & Boshoff, A. (2018). The role of psychological capital in the relationship between authentic leadership and work engagement. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(1), 1–9.
*Duan, S. H. (2018). The influence of authentic leadership and employees’ innovation behaviors. Sweeping over the Management, 000(27), 102–106. (in Chinese)
*Duncan, P., Green, M., Gergen, E., & Ecung, W. (2017). Authentic leadership - is it more than emotional intelligence? Administrative Issues Journal Education Practice and Research, 7(2), 11–22.
Eatough, E. M., Chang, C., Miloslavic, S. A., & Johnson, R. E. (2011). Relationships of role stressors with organizational citizenship behavior: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 619–632.
*Eberly, M. B. (2011). Follower reactions to leader emotions: A cognitive and affective path to leadership effectiveness. Unpublished PhD, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2): 350–383.
*Emuwa, A. (2013). Authentic leadership: Commitment to supervisor, follower empowerment, and procedural justice climate. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 6(1), 45–65.
*Epitropaki, O. (2013). Employment uncertainty and the role of authentic leadership and positive psychological capital. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Orlando, FL.
*Erkutlu, H., & Chafra, J. (2013). Effects of trust and psychological contract violation on authentic leadership and organizational deviance. Management Research Review, 36(9), 828–848.
Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., Van, D. D., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant Leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 111–132.
Ewen, C., Wihler, A., Blickle, G., Oerder, K., Ellen Iii, B. P., Douglas, C., & Ferris, G. R. (2013). Further specification of the leader political skill–leadership effectiveness relationships: Transformational and transactional leader behavior as mediators. The leadership quarterly, 24(4): 516–533.
*Fard, M. H., Damavandi, A. A., Mandilouytazehkandi, A., & Asharin, M. (2020). Leadership and followers’ organizational citizenship behaviour from the Islamic perspective (OCBIP). Journal of Islamic Marketing, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print).
*Fladerer, M. P., & Braun, S. (2020). Managers’ resources for authentic leadership - a multi-study exploration of positive psychological capacities and ethical organizational climates. British Journal of Management, 31(2), 325–343.
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(3): 291–309.
Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1): 113–165.
Gardner, J. W. (1993). On leadership. The Free Press.
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005a). "Can you see the real me?" A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. Leadership Quarterly, 16(3): 343–372.
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2005b). Authentic leadership development: Emergent trends and future directions. Authentic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects and development: 387–406.
Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1120–1145.
George, J. M. 2000. Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53(8): 1027–1055.
*Giallonardo, L. M., Wong, C. A., & Iwasiw, C. L. (2010). Authentic leadership of preceptors: predictor of new graduate nurses’ work engagement and job satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Management, 18(8), 993–1003.
Glasman, L. R. & Albarracín, D. (2006). Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: a meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation, Psychological Bulletin, 132(5): 778–822.
Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26(3): 463–488.
*Groselj, M., Cerne, M., Penger, S., & Grah, B. (2020). Authentic and transformational leadership and innovative work behaviour: the moderating role of psychological empowerment. European Journal of Innovation Management, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print).
*Gu, P., & Gu, J. P. (2015). The impact of authentic leadership and self-evaluation on work engagement: an empirical study based on the new generation of employees in startups. Nanjing Journal of Social Sciences, 338(12), 34–40. (in Chinese)
*Guenter, H., Gardner, W. L., McCauley, K. D., Randolph-Seng, B., & Prabhu, V. P. (2017). Shared authentic leadership in research teams: Testing a multiple mediation model. Small Group Research, 48(6), 719–765.
*Guerrero, S., Lapalme, M., & Séguin, M. (2015). Board chair authentic leadership and nonexecutives ’motivation and commitment. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22(1), 88–101.
*Guo, F.M. (2017). Research on the impact of authentic leadership on employees’ performance. Unpublished dissertation. Guangdong University of Finance & Economics. (in Chinese).
*Guo, W., Li. Y. P., Du, S., & Tao, H.Y. (2012). Authentic leadership and employee-team creativity: a multi-level study. Nankai Business Review, 15(3), 51–60. (in Chinese)
*Han, Y., & Yang, B. Y. (2011). The authentic leadership, the psychological capital and employees’ innovative behavior: the mediating of the leading members. Management World, 12, 78–86. (in Chinese)
*Hannah, S. T., Walumbwa, F. O., & Fry, L. W. (2011). Leadership in action teams: team leader and members’ authenticity, authentivity strength, and team outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 64(3), 771–802.
*Hassan, A., & Ahmed, F. (2011). Authentic leadership, trust and work engagement. International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering, 6(3), 164–170.
*He, W. X., Liu, X. M., & Yao. J. (2019). Authentic leadership and team creativity - a multiple - step multiple mediator model. Science &Technology Progress and Policy, 36(8), 131–138. (in Chinese)
Hobfoll, S. E. 1989. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3): 513–524.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Sage.
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture's consequences : comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
Hotten, R. (2015). Volkswagen: The scandal explained. BBC.
*Houghton, J D., Dawley, D., Bucklew, N., & Munyon, T. (2013). Truly limiting: How authentic leadership and organizational politics affect the performance of organizational citizenship behavior. Paper presented at the 2013 Academy of Management Meeting, Orlando, FL.
Houkes, I., Janssen, P. P., Jonge, J., & Bakker, A. B. (2003). Specific determinants of intrinsic work motivation, emotional exhaustion and turnover intention: A multisample longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76(4): 427–450.
*Hsiung, H.-H. (2012). Authentic leadership and employee voice behavior: A multi-level psychological process. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 349-361.
*Hu, Y. X., Wu, X., Zong, Z. B., Xiao, Y. L., Maguire, P., Qu, F. Z., & Wang, D. (2018). Authentic Leadership and Proactive Behavior: The Role of Psychological Capital and Compassion at Work. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2470–2484.
*Huang, L., & Luthans, F. (2013). Authentic leadership and follower voice: The mediating role of voice self-efficacy in the leader-member Exchange context. Unpublished study.
*Huang, L. Q. (2016). The study of the impact of authentic leadership on employees’ innovative. Unpublished dissertation. Guangdong University of Finance & Economics. (in Chinese)
*Huang, Y.Z. (2013). The influence of authentic leadership on organizational citizenship behavior of employees: the mediating role of psychological capital. Unpublished dissertation. Central South University. (in Chinese)
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis. Correcting error and bias in research findings. Sage Publications.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Sage
Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Le, H. (2006). Implications of direct and indirect range restriction for meta-analysis methods and findings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 594–612.
*Huy, P. T. (2019). How authentic leadership promotes individual knowledge sharing: viewing from the lens of COR theory. Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 14(4), 386–401.
*Ilies, R., Curseu, P. L., Dimotakis, N., & Spitzmuller, M. (2013). Leaders’emotional expressiveness and their behavioural and relational authenticity: Effects on followers. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(1), 4–14.
Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader-follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 373–394.
*Iqbal, S., Farid, T., Khan, M. K., Zhang, Q. H., Khattak, A., & Ma, J. H. (2020). Bridging the gap between authentic leadership and employees communal relationships through trust. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(1), 14.
Jackson, T. A., Meyer, J. P., & Wang, X.-H. (2013). Leadership, commitment, and culture: A meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(1): 84–106.
*Jensen, S. M. (2003). Entrepreneurs as leaders: Impact of psychological capital and perceptions of authenticity on venture performance. Unpublished PhD, The University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Lincoln, NE
*Jensen, S. M., & Luthans, F. (2006). Entrepreneurs as authentic leaders: Impact on employees’ attitudes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(8), 646–666.
*Jia, J. F., Jiao, Y. X., Zhao, R. N. (2018). The influence of authentic leadership on the strength of human resource management - the mediating role of employee voice behavior and the moderating effect of perceptions of organizational politics. Journal of Northeastern University (Social Science), 20(4), 373–379. (in Chinese)
Judge, T. A., Weiss, H. M., Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Hulin, C. L. (2017). Job attitudes, job satisfaction, and job affect: A century of continuity and of change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 356–374.
*Kampa, J., Rigotti, T., & Otto, K. (2017). Mechanisms linking authentic leadership to emotional exhaustion: The role of procedural justice and emotional demands in a moderated mediation approach. Ind Health, 55(2), 95–107.
*Kaya, B., & Karatepe, O. M. (2019). Does servant leadership better explain work engagement, career satisfaction and adaptive performance than authentic leadership? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(6), 2075–2095.
*Kiersch, C. E. (2012). A multi-level examination of authentic leadership and organizational justice in uncertain times. Unpublished PhD, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
*Kim, M., Kim, A. C. H., Newman, J. I., Ferris, G. R., & Perrewe, P. L. (2019). The antecedents and consequences of positive organizational behavior: The role of psychological capital for promoting employee well-being in sport organizations. Sport Management Review, 22(1), 108–125.
*Kiyani, K., Saher, N., Saleem, S., & Iqbal, M. (2013). Emotional intelligence (EI) and employee outcomes: The mediating effect of authentic leadership style. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 5(1), 394–405.
*Knoll, M., & van Dick, R. (2013). Authenticity, employee silence, prohibitive voice, and the moderating effect of organizational identification. Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(4), 346–360.
*Koster, F., & Lambooij, M. (2018). Managing innovations: A study of the implementation of electronic medical records in Dutch Hospitals. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 15(1), 1–23.
*Kotze, M., & Nel, P. (2015). The influence of trait-emotional intelligence on authentic leadership. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(1), 1–9.
*Kurt, I. (2016). The mediating role of cynicism on authentic leadership and organizational identification relationship. Paper presented at the Business Challenges in the Changing Economic Landscape - Vol. 2, Cham.
Kuvaas, B., Buch, R., Dysvik, A., & Haerem, T. (2012). Economic and social leader–member exchange relationships and follower performance, The Leadership Quarterly 23(5): 756–765.
*Lagan, T. E. (2007). Examining authentic leadership: Development of a four-dimensional scale and identification of a nomological network. University at Albany, State University of New York.
*Laschinger, H. K. Spence, W., Carol A., & Grau, A. L. (2012). The influence of authentic leadership on newly graduated nurses’ experiences of workplace bullying, burnout and retention outcomes: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 49(10), 1266–1276.
*Laschinger, H. K., Wong, C. A., & Grau, A. L. (2013). Authentic leadership, empowerment and burnout: a comparison in new graduates and experienced nurses. Journal of Nursing Management, 21(3), 541–552.
*Laschinger, H. K. S., & Fida, R. (2014). A time-lagged analysis of the effect of authentic leadership on workplace bullying, burnout, and occupational turnover intentions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(5), 739–753.
*Lee, H. F., Chiang, H. Y., & Kuo, H. T. (2019). Relationship between authentic leadership and nurses’intent to leave: The mediating role of work environment and burnout. Journal of Nursing Management, 27(1), 52–65.
*Lelchook, A. (2012). Antecedents and outcomes of workplace engagement. Unpublished PhD, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.
*Leroy, H., Dierynck, B., Anseel, F., Simons, T., Halbesleben, J. R., McCaughey, D., … & Sels, L. (2012b). Behavioral Integrity for Safety, Priority of Safety, Psychological Safety, and Patient Safety: A Team-Level Study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1273–1281.
*Leroy, H., Palanski, M. E., & Simons, T. (2012a). Authentic leadership and behavioral integrity as drivers of follower commitment and performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3):255–264.
*Leroy, Hannes, Anseel, Frederik, Gardner, William L, & Sels, Luc. (2015). Authentic leadership, authentic followership, basic need satisfaction, and work role performance: A cross-level study. Journal of management, 41(6), 1677–1697.
*Lewis, T. M. (2010). The influence of authenticity and emotional intelligence on the relationship between self-monitoring and leadership effectiveness. Unpublished PhD, Alliant International University, Alhambra, CA.
*Li, F., Yu, K. F., Yang, J., Qi, Z., & Fu, J. H. Y. (2014a). Authentic Leadership, traditionality, and interactional justice in the Chinese context. Management and Organization Review, 10(2), 249–273.
*Li, J. (2011). The study of authentic leadership and psychological capital based on employees’ performance in private enterprises. Unpublished dissertation. Shanghai Jiao Tong University. (in Chinese)
*Li, J.Y. (2018). Research on the relationship among authentic leadership, employee’ intrinsic motivation and employees’ innovation performance. Unpublished dissertation. Hefei University of Technology. (in Chinese)
*Li, Y. X., et al. (2014b). The impact of authentic leadership on work engagement: testing a multiple mediation mode. Journal of Psychological Science, 37(3), 716–722. (in Chinese)
*Liang, C. (2014). Research on the influence of authentic leadership on new generation employees’ organization commitment -take psychological capital as mediator factor. Unpublished dissertation. Southwest University of Political Science and Law. (in Chinese)
*Liang, F. (2020). The impact of authentic leadership on unethical pro - organizational behavior: a moderated mediating model. Review of Economy and Management, 36(4), 65–76. (in Chinese)
*Liang, S. G. (2017). Linking leader authentic personality to employee voice behaviour: a multilevel mediation model of authentic leadership development. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(3), 434–443.
*Lin, H. Y. (2014). The impact of authentic leadership on employees’ work engagement. Unpublished dissertation. South China University of Technology. (in Chinese)
*Lin, Z. Y., & Yang, X.G. (2018). The influence of authentic leadership on the turnover intention of civil servants: mediating role of organizational climate and psychological capital. Journal of Mudanjang Normal university, 203(1), 120–126. (in Chinese)
*Ling, Q., Liu, F., & Wu, X. (2017). Servant versus authentic leadership: assessing effectiveness in china’s hospitality industry. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 58(1), 53–68.
*Liu, F., He, S., Tang, Y. L., & Liu, X. F. (2014, 25–27 June 2014). The impact of authentic leadership on employees’ work engagement: A multilevel study in Chinese hospitality industry. Paper presented at the 2014 11th International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management (ICSSSM).
*Liu, M.X., & Xu, X. W. (2019). Research on the impact of authentic leadership on employees’knowledge sharing behavior: the mediating role of moral identification. China Soft Science, 2, 171–180. (in Chinese)
*Liu, Y. (2012). Linking authentic leadership to positive employee health, behavioral engagement, and job performance. Unpublished D.B.A., Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA.
*Long, J., Wen, Q.X., & Huang, Q.Q. (2020). Study on the effects of authentic leadership on employees’ speaking up behavior. Soft Science, 34(10), 103–110. (in Chinese)
Lord, R. G., Day, D. V., Zaccaro, S. J., Avolio, B. J., & Eagly, A. H. (2017). Leadership in applied psychology: Three waves of theory and research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 434–451.
*Luo, J.L., & Zhao, J. (2013). A study about the influential mechanism of authentic leadership on employee voice behavior. Soft Science, 27(12), 41–44. (in Chinese)
*Lusin, J. M. (2014). Employee perceptions of authentic leadership and outcomes of planned organizational change. Unpublished dissertation. George Washington University.
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. 2003. Authentic leadership development. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.). Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 241–258). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
*Luu, T. T. (2020). Linking authentic leadership to salespeople's service performance: The roles of job crafting and human resource flexibility. Industrial Marketing Management, 84, 89–104.
*Lyu, Y., Wang, M., Le, J., & Kwan, H. K. (2019). Effects of authentic leadership on work–family balance in China. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34(2), 110–123.
*Lyubovnikova, J., Legood, A., Turner, N., & Mamakouka, A. (2017). How authentic leadership influences team performance: the mediating role of team reflexivity. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(1), 59–70.
*Malik, N. (2016). Authentic leadership and its impact on extra role behaviour of nurses: The mediating role of psychological capital and the moderating role of autonomy. Personnel Review, 46(2), 277–296.
*Mao, J., Chiu, C. Y., Owens, B. P., Brown, J. A., & Liao, J. (2019). Growing followers: exploring the effects of leader humility on follower self-expansion, self-efficacy, and performance. Journal of Management Studies, 56(2), 343–371.
Martin, K. D., & Cullen, J. B. (2006). Continuities and extensions of ethical climate theory: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(2): 175–194.
Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., Thomas, G., Lee, A., & Epitropaki, O. (2016). Leader–member exchange (LMX) and performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 67–121.
*Maximo, N., Stander, M. W., & Coxen, L. (2019). Authentic leadership and work engagement: The indirect effects of psychological safety and trust in supervisors. Sa Journal of Industrial Psychology, 45(1), 1–11.
*McClellan, J. L. (2007). A correlational analysis of the relationship between psychological hardiness and servant leadership among leaders in higher education. Unpublished PhD, Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA.
*Mehmood, Q., Hamstra, M. R., Nawab, S., & Vriend, T. (2016a). Authentic leadership and followers’in-role and extra-role performance: The mediating role of followers’learning goal orientation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89(4), 877–883.
*Mehmood, Q., Nawab, S., & Hamstra, M. R. (2016b). Does authentic leadership predict employee work engagement and in-role performance? considering the role of learning goal orientation. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 15(3), 139–142.
*Mei, Z. C. (2019). The impact of real-life leadership on the performance of civil servants - Analysis of the adjustment effect based on emotional intelligence. Unpublished dissertation. Lanzhou University. (in Chinese)
*Men, L. (2012). The effects of organizational leadership on strategic internal communication and employee outcomes. Unpublished PhD, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL
*Meskelis, S., & Whittington, J. L. (2020). Driving employee engagement: how personality trait and leadership style impact the process. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print).
*Meurs, J. A., Perrewé, P. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2011). Political skill as moderator of the trait sincerity-task performance relationship: a socioanalytic, narrow trait perspective. Human Performance, 24(2), 119–134.
Miao, C., Humphrey, R. H., & Qian, S. 2018. Emotional intelligence and authentic leadership: a meta-analysis. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(5): 679–690.
Michie, S., & Gooty, J. (2005). Values, emotions, and authenticity: Will the real leader please stand up? Leadership Quarterly, 16(3): 441–457.
*Milad, M. (2012). What is Authentic Leadership really measuring? The role of leader core self-evaluation, character, and narcissism. Unpublished PhD, Alliant International University, Alhambra, CA.
*Monzani, L., Braun, S., & van Dick, R. (2016). It takes two to tango: The interactive effect of authentic leadership and organizational identification on employee silence intentions. German Journal of Human Resource Management-Zeitschrift Fur Personalforschung, 30(3–4), 246–266.
*Mortier, A. V., Vlerick, P., & Clays, E. (2016). Authentic leadership and thriving among nurses: the mediating role of empathy. Journal of Nursing Management, 24(3), 357–365.
*Mubarak, F., & Noor, A. (2018). Effect of authentic leadership on employee creativity in project-based organizations with the mediating roles of work engagement and psychological empowerment. Cogent Business & Management, 5(1), 1–14.
Mullen, J. (2016). Mitsubishi motors shares plunge over rigged fuel economy tests. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/news/companies/mitsubishi-motors-fuel-tests/?iid=EL
*Mullins, A. K. (2015). The dimensionality of destructive leadership: Toward an integration of the bright and dark sides (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
*Nasab, A. H., & Afshari, L. (2019). Authentic leadership and employee performance: mediating role of organizational commitment. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 40(5), 548–560.
*Neider, L. L., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2011). The authentic leadership inventory (ALI): Development and empirical tests. Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1146–1164.
*Nielsen, M. B. (2013). Bullying in work groups: The impact of leadership. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 54(2), 127–136.
*Nielsen, M. B., Eid, J., Hystad, S. W., Sætrevik, B., & Saus, E. R. (2013b). A brief safety climate inventory for petro-maritime organizations. Safety Science, 58(2013), 81–88.
*Nielsen, M. B., Eid, J., Mearns, K., & Larsson, G. (2013a). Authentic leadership and its relationship with risk perception and safety climate. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34(4), 308–325.
*Niu, W., Yuan, Q., Qian, S., & Liu, Z. (2018). Authentic leadership and employee job behaviors: The mediating role of relational and organizational identification and the moderating role of LMX. Current Psychology, 37(4), 982–994.
*Norman, S. M. (2006). The role of trust: Implications for psychological capital and authentic leadership. Unpublished PhD, The University of Nebraska, Lincoln, LE
*Norris, H. T. (2013). A study of the relationships between authentic leadership and job satisfaction in a parks and recreation organization. Unpublished dissertation.
*Oh, J., Cho, D., & Lim, D. H. (2018). Authentic leadership and work engagement: the mediating effect of practicing core values. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(2), 276–290.
*Oh, J., & Oh, S. (2017). Authentic leadership and turnover intention: does organizational size matter? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(7), 912–926.
*Olaniyan, O. S., & Hystad, S. W. (2016). Employees’ psychological capital, job satisfaction, insecurity, and intentions to quit: The direct and indirect effects of authentic leadership. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology-Revista De Psicologia Del Trabajo Y De Las Organizaciones, 32(3), 163–171.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, N. P., & MacKenzie, S. B. 2006. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents and consequences. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.
Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good solider syndrome. Lexington Books.
*Ortiz-Gómez, M., Giorgi, G., Molina-Sánchez, H., & Ariza-Montes, A. (2020). Development and validation of a spanish short servant leadership survey (SSLS6-3F) among Spanish workers in religious non-profit organizations. Sustainability, 12(9), 1–18.
*Özkan, S., & Ceylan, A. (2012). Multi-level analysis of authentic leadership from a Turkish consruction engineers perspective. South East European Journal of Economics and Business, 7(2), 101–114.
*Öztürk Çiftci, D., & Erkanli, H. (2020). Mediating role of the positive psychological capital on the relation between the authentic leadership style and employees’work engagement: An applied study on hospitality industry. Business and Economics Research Journal, 11(2), 461–478.
*Parr, A. D., & Hunter, S. T. (2014). Enhancing work outcomes of employees with autism spectrum disorder through leadership: Leadership for employees with autism spectrum disorder. Autism, 18(5), 545–554.
Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., Walker, L. S., & Woehr, D. J. (2014). Gender and perceptions of leadership effectiveness: A meta-analysis of contextual moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1129–1145.
*Peus, C., Wesche, J. S., Streicher, B., Braun, S., & Frey, D. (2012). Authentic leadership: An empirical test of its antecedents, consequences, and mediating mechanisms. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 331–348.
Pletzer, J. L., Bentvelzen, M., Oostrom, J. K., & de Vries, R. E. (2019). A meta-analysis of the relations between personality and workplace deviance: Big Five versus HEXACO. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112(2019), 369–383.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual review of psychology, 63, 539–569.
*Qiao, Z. (2015). The empirical research about perception of authentic leadership and employees’ psychological capital impact on employees’ job stress. Unpublished dissertation. Zhenjiang Sci-Tech University. (in Chinese)
Qin, W., Zhao, S., Zhou, L., & Li, J. 2016a. Mediated moderating impact of authentic leadership on employee creativity. Journal of Management Sciences in China, 19(12): 83–94.
*Qin, W. P., Li, J., & Zhou, L. L. (2015). The impact of authentic leadership on team creativity: a model of a moderated mediating effect. Science of Science and Management of S. & T, 36(5), 171–180. (in Chinese)
*Qin, W. P & Zhao, S. M. (2015). The impact of authentic leadership on employee creativity-based on the mediating role of work passion. Soft Science, 29(5), 82–86. (in Chinese)
*Qin, W. P., Zhao, S. M., & Zhou, L. L. (2016b). Authentic leadership and employee creativity - mediation mechanism. Journal of Management Sciences in China, 19(12), 83–94. (in Chinese)
*Qiu, S., Alizadeh, A., Dooley, L. M., & Zhang, R. (2019). The effects of authentic leadership on trust in leaders, organizational citizenship behavior, and service quality in the Chinese hospitality industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 40(2019), 77–87.
Rabl, T., Jayasinghe, M., Gerhart, B., & Kühlmann, T. M. (2014). A meta-analysis of country differences in the high-performance work system–business performance relationship: The roles of national culture and managerial discretion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6): 1011–1041.
*Rahimnia, F., & Sharifirad, M. S. (2015). Authentic leadership and employee well-being: The mediating role of attachment insecurity. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(2), 363–377.
Randall, M. L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C. A., & Birjulin, A. (1999). Organizational politics and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(2): 159–174.
*Regan, S., Laschinger, H. K., & Wong, C. A. (2016). The influence of empowerment, authentic leadership, and professional practice environments on nurses’ perceived interprofessional collaboration. Journal of Nursing Management, 24(1), E54–61.
*Rego, A., Sousa, F., Marques, C., & e Cunha, M. P. (2012). Authentic leadership promoting employees’ psychological capital and creativity. Journal of Business Research, 65(3), 429–437.
*Rego, A., Vitória, A., Magalhães, A., Ribeiro, N., & e Cunha, M. P. (2013). Are authentic leaders associated with more virtuous, committed and potent teams? Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 61–79.
*Ribeiro, N., Duarte, A. P., & Filipe, R. (2018a). How authentic leadership promotes individual performance: Mediating role of organizational citizenship behavior and creativity. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 67(9), 1585–1607.
*Ribeiro, N., Duarte, A. P., Filipe, R., & Torres de Oliveira, R. (2020). How Authentic Leadership Promotes Individual Creativity: The Mediating Role of Affective Commitment. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 27(2), 189–202
*Ribeiro, N., Gomes, D., & Kurian, S. (2018b). Authentic leadership and performance: the mediating role of employees’ affective commitment. Social Responsibility Journal, 14(1), 213–225.
*Rodriguez, R. A., Green, M. T., Sun, Y., & Baggerly-Hinojosa, B. (2017). Authentic leadership and Transformational leadership: an incremental approach. Journal of Leadership Studies, 11(1), 20–35.
Rothstein, H. R., & Hopewell, S. (2009). Grey literature. In The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis, 2nd ed. (pp. 103–125). New York, NY, US: Russell Sage Foundation.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3): 393–404.
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Peng, A. C. 2011. Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4): 863–871.
*Schriesheim, C. A., & Liu, Y. H. (2018). Distinguished scholars invited essay: becoming a good sport and a better performer: A social information processing view of authentic leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 25(2), 141–152.
*Schuckert, M., Kim, T. T., Paek, S., & Lee, G. (2018). Motivate to innovate: How authentic and transformational leaders influence employees’ psychological capital and service innovation behavior. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(2), 776–796.
*Seco, V., & Lopes, M. P. (2013). Calling for authentic leadership: The moderator role of calling on the relationship between authentic leadership and work engagement. Open Journal of Leadership, 2(04), 95–102.
*Semedo, A. S. D., Coelho, A. F. M., & Ribeiro, N. M. P. (2017). Authentic leadership and creativity: the mediating role of happiness. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 25(3), 395–412.
*Seong, N. C., Moon, J. S., & Park, K. H. (2016). The effect of distribution enterprise leader's coaching behavior on organizational citizenship behavior and turnover intention: mediating role of authentic leadership and moderating role of emotional intelligence. The Journal of Distribution Science, 14(1), 75–84.
*Shang, Y., Chong, M. P., Xu, J., & Zhu, X. (2019). Authentic leadership and creativity in China: The role of students’ regulatory-focused behaviors and supervisors’power sources. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 34(2019), 100592.
*Shao, M.M. (2012). The study of psychological capital of leaders based on leadership effectiveness in enterprises - authentic leadership as a mediator variable. Unpublished dissertation. Zhejiang Gongshang University. (in Chinese)
*Shapira-Lishchinsky, O., & Benoliel, P. (2019). Nurses’psychological empowerment: An integrative approach. Journal of Nursing Management, 27(3), 661–670.
*Shapira-Lishchinsky, O., & Tsemach, S. (2014). Psychological empowerment as a mediator between teachers’ perceptions of authentic leadership and their withdrawal and citizenship behaviors. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(4):675–712.
*Shulga, L. V. (2020). Change management communication: the role of meaningfulness, leadership brand authenticity, and gender. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print), 1–18.
*Singh, A., Sengupta, S., & Sharma, S. (2016). Empathy and mindfulness: potential antecedents to authentic leadership. International Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology Professionals, 7(4), 1–14.
*Song, C. (2018). Psychological mechanism of the influence of authentic leadership on employees’ innovative behavior. Unpublished dissertation. Guizhou University of Finance and Economics. (in Chinese)
*Spitzmuller, M., & Ilies, R. (2010). Do they all see my true self? Leader's relational authenticity and followers’ assessments of transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(3), 304–332.
*Stearns, M. (2012). The relationship of leadership behaviors to staff RN job satisfaction and retention. Unpublished Ed.D., Grand Canyon University, Phoenix, AZ
*Tak, J., Seo, J., & Roh, T. (2019). The influence of authentic leadership on authentic followership, positive psychological capital, and project performance: testing for the mediation effects. Sustainability, 11(21), 6028.
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46(2): 259–293.
*Tian, H. (2012). Research on the relationship of authentic leadership, creative self-efficacy and employees’ creative performance. Unpublished dissertation. Soochow University. (in Chinese)
*Todt, G., Weiss, M., & Hoegl, M. (2019). Leading through innovation project setbacks: How authentic leaders keep their innovators resilient. Project Management Journal, 50(4), 409–417.
*Tuttle, M. D. (2009). True north or traveled terrain? An empirical investigation of authentic leadership. Unpublished PhD, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.
*Valsania, S. E., León, J. A. M., Alonso, F. M., & Cantisano, G. T. (2012). Authentic leadership and its effect on employees’ organizational citizenship behaviours. Psicothema, 24(4), 561–566.
*Valsania, S. E., Moriano, J. A., & Molero, F. (2016). Authentic leadership and intrapreneurial behavior: cross-level analysis of the mediator effect of organizational identification and empowerment. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 12(1), 131–152.
*van den Bosch, R., & Taris, T. W. (2014). Authenticity at Work: Development and Validation of an Individual Authenticity Measure at Work. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(1):1–18.
Victor, B., & Cullen, J. B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(1), 101–125.
Viswesvaran, C. and Deniz S. Ones (1995). “Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta-analysis and structural equations modeling.” Personnel Psychology 48(4): 865–885.
*Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of management, 34(1), 89–126.
Walumbwa, F. O., & 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(5): 1275–1286.
*Wang, D. S., Han, J., & Li, T.T. (2020). How does the authentic leadership restrain the employees’ CWB? - mediated by leader-member exchange and moderated by self-efficacy. Research on Economics and Management, 41(7), 134–144. (in Chinese)
*Wang, D.-S., & Hsieh, C.-C. (2013). The effect of authentic leadership on employee trust and employee engagement. Social Behavior Personality: an international journal, 41(4), 613–624.
*Wang, H. U. I., Sui, Y., Luthans, F., Wang, D., & Wu, Y. (2014). Impact of authentic leadership on performance: Role of followers’ positive psychological capital and relational processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(1), 5–21.
*Wang, M.M., & Zhang, J. (2019). The impact of authentic leadership on new generation employee creativity: The mediating role of perceived insider status. Science of Science and Management of S. & T, 40(3), 127–141. (in Chinese)
*Wang, Z. Y., & Xie, Y. H. (2020). Authentic leadership and employees’ emotional labour in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(2), 797–814.
*Wei, F., Li, Y., Zhang, Y., & Liu, S. (2018). The interactive effect of authentic leadership and leader competency on followers’ job performance: The mediating role of work engagement. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(3), 763–773.
*Wei, X. T. (2020). Research on the influence of authentic leadership on employee innovation behavior. Unpublished dissertation. Harbin Institute of Technology. (in Chinese)
*Weiss, M., Razinskas, S., Backmann, J., & Hoegl, M. (2018). Authentic leadership and leaders’mental well-being: An experience sampling study. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(2), 309–321.
*Wherry, H. M. (2012). Authentic leadership, leader-member exchange, and organizational citizenship behavior: A multilevel analysis. Unpublished PhD, University of Nebraska
*Williams, E. A., Pillai, R., Deptula, B., & Lowe, K. B. (2012). The effects of crisis, cynicism about change, and value congruence on perceptions of authentic leadership and attributed charisma in the 2008 presidential election. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 324–341.
*Williams, L. C. (2014). The relationship between authentic leadership and job satisfaction in a university setting. Unpublished dissertation. Capella University, Minneapolis, MN.
*Wilson, D. R. (2013). Examining the relationship between authentic leadership behaviors and follower employee engagement. Unpublished PhD, Capella University, Minneapolis, MN.
*Wong, C., Walsh, E. J., Basacco, K. N., Domingues, M. C. M., & Pye, D. R. H. (2020). Authentic leadership and job satisfaction among long-term care nurses. Leadership in Health Services, 33(3):247–263.
*Wong, C. A., & Cummings, G. G. (2010). The influence of authentic leadership behaviors on trust and work outcomes of health care staff. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(2), 6–23.
*Wong, C. A., & Laschinger, H. K. S. (2013). Authentic leadership, performance, and job satisfaction: the mediating role of empowerment. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 69(4), 947–959.
Wong, C. S., & Law, K. S. 2002. The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly, 13(3): 243–274.
*Wood, G. M. (2007). Authentic leadership: Do we really need another leadership theory? Unpublished PhD, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. The Academy of Management Review, 14(3): 361–384.
*Wouters, C., Brüll, P. & Zafra, E.L. (2017) “Emotional intelligence, vigor, and authentic leadership: their underlying relationship and combined influence on life satisfaction, academic performance, and mental health”, UI Proceedings on Social Science and Humanities.
*Wu, C. M., & Chen, T. J. (2019). Inspiring pro-sociality in hotel workplaces: Roles of authentic leadership, collective mindfulness, and collective thriving. Tourism Management Perspectives, 31(2019), 123–135.
*Xiong, K., Lin, W., Li, J. C., & Wang, L. (2016). Employee trust in supervisors and affective commitment: The moderating role of authentic leadership. Psychological reports, 118(3), 829–848.
*Xu, B. D., Zhao, S. K., Li, C. R., & Lin, C. J. (2017). Authentic leadership and employee creativity: testing the multilevel mediation model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(3), 482–498.
*Yan, Chun., & Wang, S. H. (2018). The Impact of Authentic Leadership on Employee Speaking-up Behavior: The Construction and Test of a Dual Mediation Model. Human Resource Development of China, 35(3), 18–28. (in Chinese)
*Yang, C.Q. (2018). A study on the influence of authentic leadership on employee creativity: The mediating role of self-efficacy and the moderating role of power distance. Unpublished dissertation. Nanjing University of Finance and Economics. (in Chinese)
*Yang, H., &Yang, B. Y. (2016). Authentic leadership and employee innovation performance: Mediating role of felt obligation for constructive change. Chinese Journal of Management, 13(4), 533–541. (in Chinese)
*Yang, J.C., & Lin, S.Q. (2018). Influence of authentic leadership on follower discretionary work behaviors. Soft Science, 32(4), 86–89. (in Chinese)
*Yao, Y.M. (2015). The study of the relationship among authentic leadership, psychological capital and employee silence. Unpublished dissertation. Dongbei University of Finance and Economics. (in Chinese)
*Yemi-Sofumade, H. B. (2012). The relationship between ethical and authentic nurse leadership and the turnover intentions of staff nurses. Unpublished PhD, Capella University, Minneapolis, MN
Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations. Prentice Hall.
*Zeb, A., Abdullah, N. H., Hussain, A., & Safi, A. (2019). Authentic leadership, knowledge sharing, and employees’ creativity. Management Research Review, 43(6), 669–690.
*Zhang, J., Song, L. J., Ni, D., & Zheng, X. (2020b). Follower mindfulness and well-being: The mediating role of perceived authentic leadership and the moderating role of leader mindfulness. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–10.
*Zhang, J., Song, L. J., Wang, Y., & Liu, G. (2018). How authentic leadership influences employee proactivity: the sequential mediating effects of psychological empowerment and core self-evaluations and the moderating role of employee political skill. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 12(1), 1–21.
*Zhang, J.P., & Lin S. Q. (2018). A cross-level research on the impact of authentic leadership and authentic followership on thriving at work and proactive behavior. Industrial Economy Review, 5(5), 17–33. (in Chinese)
*Zhang, L., Hu, J.C., & Wu, Y.Z. (2015). Impact of authentic leadership on employee followership: The role of follow trust and leader-member exchange. Human Resource Development of China, 21, 55–64. (in Chinese)
*Zhang, S., Bowers, A. J., & Mao, Y. (2020a). Authentic leadership and teachers’ voice behaviour: The mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of interpersonal trust. Educational Management Administration Leadership, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print).
*Zhang, X. (2018). The influence of authentic leadership perception on employee innovation behavior and Its mechanism. Unpublished dissertation. Harbin Institute of Technology. (in Chinese)
*Zhang, X. L. (2016). Research on the impaction of authentic leadership and perceived organizational support on employees’ turnover intention. Unpublished dissertation. Jilin University. (in Chinese)
Zhang, Y., & Bednall, T. C. (2016). Antecedents of abusive supervision: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(3), 455–471.
Zhang, Y., & Liao, Z. (2015). Consequences of abusive supervision: A meta-analytic review. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32(4), 959–987.
*Zhao, F. Q., et al. (2017). Impact of WFB-HRM on Employee Performance:Effects of Thriving at Work and Authentic Leadership. Human Resource Development of China, 9, 81–96. (in Chinese)
*Zhao, H. D., & Jiang, W. (2017). Authentic Leadership, Perceived Insider Status and Organizational Dissent -A Moderated Mediation Model. Soft Science, 31(12), 73–77. (in Chinese)
*Zhao, J., Liu, Y. J., Mei, W., & Liu, Z.Q. (2020), Authentic leadership, perceived insider status and affiliative organizational citizenship behaviors: A moderated U-shaped mediation model. Journal of Industrial Engineering, 1, 1––11. (in Chinese)
*Zheng, M. X., Yuan, Y., van Dijke, M., De Cremer, D., & Van Hiel, A. (2020). The interactive effect of a leader’s sense of uniqueness and sense of belongingness on followers’ perceptions of leader authenticity. Journal of Business Ethics, 164(3), 515–533.
*Zhou, A., Yang, Z., Kwan, H. K., & Chiu, R. K. (2019). Work-family spillover and crossover effects of authentic leadership in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 57(3), 299–321.
*Zhou, H. L. (2014). The effect of authentic leadership on employee’s work engagement and turnover intention. Unpublished dissertation. Henan University. (in Chinese)
*Zhu, Z. Y. (2014). An empirical research on the influences of authentic leadership on employees’ voice behavior in enterprises. Unpublished dissertation. Hunan University. (in Chinese)
*Zou, Z. F., & Yang, Z. P. (2013). The effect of authentic leadership on employee voice behavior: Mediated by voice efficacy and moderated by leadership-member exchange. Human Resource Development of China, 21, 41–45. (in Chinese)
Acknowledgement
This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71972065, 71602163, 71701015) and General Program of Natural Science Foundation of Hebei Province (G2019202307).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The original online version of this article was revised: Acknowledgement section was added.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhang, Y., Guo, Y., Zhang, M. et al. Antecedents and outcomes of authentic leadership across culture: A meta-analytic review. Asia Pac J Manag 39, 1399–1435 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-021-09762-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-021-09762-0